Re: [PATCH v2] Dynamically add and remove device specific resetfunctions

[Jesse Barnes]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 10:17:53 -0700
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 02/03/12 16:29, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> Where do you plan to add calls to pci_dev_specific_reset_add()? ÂIn
> >> drivers?
> >
> > Yes, I'm working on a driver for a device with SRIOV capability.
> > I'll call it from there.
> >
> >> Did you consider adding a "reset" function pointer to struct
> >> pci_driver? ÂThat might be more natural -- the reset function is right
> >> with all the other code that knows about the device, and there's no
> >> issue with looking up the correct reset function.
> >> With this patch, we sort of have two different ways to map
> >> vendor/device IDs to code: the usual pci_register_driver() approach,
> >> and this one using reset_list. ÂIf pci_driver had a "reset" pointer,
> >> that would be used most of the time. ÂYou might still need the
> >> reset_list for generic things, e.g., the reset_intel_generic_dev()
> >> function, but it would be a fallback. ÂIt might look something like:
> >>
> >> Â Â struct pci_driver *drv = dev->driver;
> >>
> >> Â Â if (drv && drv->reset) {
> >> Â Â Â Â drv->reset(dev);
> >> Â Â Â Â return;
> >> Â Â }
> >>
> >> Â Â list_for_each_entry(i, &reset_list, list) {
> >> Â Â Â Â ...
> >
> > No, I didn't think about it.
> > This is good idea, but for me the pci_dev_specific_reset() works fine.
> 
> I know your patch works fine, but I think we should have the
> discussion about whether adding a struct pci_driver pointer is a
> better long-term solution.
> 
> Greg, Jesse, others, chime in if you have any thoughts.

I thought we had one already... /me digs around.  Ah just for AER and
platform error handling.

I do like the idea of a driver hook here; I think there are quite a few
devices that can be reset w/o FLR and that may need additional
handling, so there's an opportunity to consolidate code.

I think it would probably make Tadeusz's patch smaller too; he could
just add the hook and a function for his driver, then conversions for
existing code could come later.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature