On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:33:53AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 23.02.21 22:14:35, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 22.02.21 23:14:15, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:56:08AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> >
On 23.02.21 22:14:35, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 22.02.21 23:14:15, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:56:08AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > On 20.02.21 00:46:49, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > > > > On 18.02.21
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 22.02.21 23:14:15, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:56:08AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > On 20.02.21 00:46:49, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > + if
On 22.02.21 23:14:15, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:56:08AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 20.02.21 00:46:49, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > > On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> >
> > > > > + if (!dr || !dr->enabled)
> > > here checks whether the pci device is
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:56:08AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 20.02.21 00:46:49, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
>
> > > > + if (!dr || !dr->enabled)
> > here checks whether the pci device is enabled.
>
> What is the purpose of this? The device
On 19.02.21 17:15:50, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> [...]
> > Obiously this is meant here:
> >
> > if (!pci_is_managed(dev))
> [...]
>
> A question to improve my understanding for future reference. Was the
> previous approach of checking for "enabled" flag from struct
On 20.02.21 00:46:49, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > + if (!dr || !dr->enabled)
> here checks whether the pci device is enabled.
What is the purpose of this? The device "is_managed" or not.
-Robert
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> > pci_alloc_irq_vectors(). Introducing this function can simplify
> > the error handling path in many drivers.
> >
> >
Hi Robert,
[...]
> Obiously this is meant here:
>
> if (!pci_is_managed(dev))
[...]
A question to improve my understanding for future reference. Was the
previous approach of checking for "enabled" flag from struct pci_devres
was not a good choice here?
Krzysztof
On 19.02.21 16:48:57, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > > Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> > > pci_alloc_irq_vectors(). Introducing this function can simplify
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:40:05PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> > pci_alloc_irq_vectors(). Introducing this function can simplify
> > the error handling path in many drivers.
> >
> >
On 19.02.21 15:40:11, Robert Richter wrote:
> static inline int pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(struct pci_dev *dev,
> unsigned int min_vecs, unsigned int max_vecs, unsigned int flags)
> {
> if (!pci_is_managed(dev, min_vecs, max_vecs, flags))
Obiously this is meant here:
if
On 18.02.21 23:04:55, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> pci_alloc_irq_vectors(). Introducing this function can simplify
> the error handling path in many drivers.
>
> And use pci_free_irq_vectors() to replace some code in pcim_release(),
> they
Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
pci_alloc_irq_vectors(). Introducing this function can simplify
the error handling path in many drivers.
And use pci_free_irq_vectors() to replace some code in pcim_release(),
they are equivalent, and no functional change. It is more
14 matches
Mail list logo
