On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:59:40 +0800
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 11:43 +0800, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> > (2010/03/11 11:14), Huang Ying wrote:
> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_hest_firmware_first_pci);
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv.h
> > > @@ -134,4 +134,13 @@ static inline int aer_osc_setup(struct p
> > >  }
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI
> > > +extern void aer_set_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *pci_dev);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline void aer_set_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	pci_dev->__aer_firmware_first_valid = 1;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >  #endif /* _AERDRV_H_ */
> > 
> > How about having aer_get_firmware_first() in this header too?
> > 
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_acpi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_acpi.c
> >  :
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI
> >  :
> > > +void aer_set_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *pci_dev)
> > > +{
> >  :
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c
> > > @@ -30,12 +30,19 @@ static int nosourceid;
> > >  module_param(forceload, bool, 0);
> > >  module_param(nosourceid, bool, 0);
> > >  
> > > +static int pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!dev->__aer_firmware_first_valid)
> > > +		aer_set_firmware_first(dev);
> > > +	return dev->__aer_firmware_first;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > Then you can put pcie_aer_get_firmware_first() to next to
> > pcie_aer_set_firmware_first() in aerdrv_acpi.c, which is
> > the best file for these functions I think.
> > 
> > > @@ -872,7 +879,7 @@ out:
> > >  	if (forceload) {
> > >  		dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &dev->device,
> > >  			   "aerdrv forceload requested.\n");
> > > -		dev->port->aer_firmware_first = 0;
> > > +		dev->port->__aer_firmware_first = 0;
> > >  		return 0;
> > >  	}
> > >  	return -ENXIO;
> > 
> > I'd like to see a purpose-oriented method here, something like
> > pcie_aer_force_firmware_first_to(dev, forcedvalue).
> > 
> > Or, it would be more better, change pcie_aer_set_firmware_first()
> > (= currently used by APEI only) to static with better name.
> > 
> > E.g. 
> >   Before:		After:
> > 
> >   # get a flag that tells @dev is firmware first or not
> >     pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(dev)
> > 			=> pcie_aer_get_firmware_first(dev) # no change
> > 
> >   # set a flag that tells @dev is firmware first or not
> >     dev->port->__aer_firmware_first = X
> > 			=> pcie_aer_set_firmware_first(dev, X)
> > 
> >   # parse hest to know @dev is firmware first or not
> >     pcie_aer_set_firmware_first(dev)
> > 			=> aer_parse_hest_for(dev)
> 
> Sounds reasonable. After putting current pcie_aer_set_firmware_first
> implementation into aerdrv_core.c, we can make it static. And we can add
> pcie_aer_force_firmware_first for forced setting.
> 
> > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > @@ -311,7 +311,8 @@ struct pci_dev {
> > >  	unsigned int	is_virtfn:1;
> > >  	unsigned int	reset_fn:1;
> > >  	unsigned int    is_hotplug_bridge:1;
> > > -	unsigned int    aer_firmware_first:1;
> > > +	unsigned int    __aer_firmware_first_valid:1;
> > > +	unsigned int	__aer_firmware_first:1;
> > >  	pci_dev_flags_t dev_flags;
> > >  	atomic_t	enable_cnt;	/* pci_enable_device has been called */
> > 
> > BTW, what the prefix "__" for?
> 
> I want to warn users that this is a internal interface, don't use it
> directly.
> 
> > I recommend you to separate this 2/2 patch into 2 pieces,
> > one for PCI addressed to Jesse, and another is for ACPI.
> > i.e.:
> > 
> >  [PATCH] PCIE, AER: arrange pcie_aer_{get,set}_firmware_first
> >  [PATCH 1/2] ACPI, APEI: Make APEI core configurable built-in
> >  [PATCH 2/2] ACPI, APEI: use general HEST table parsing in AER
> > 
> > You can make 3rd patch to contain only *acpi* changes, remove of
> > acpi/hest.c and modify of pcie/aer/aerdrv_acpi.c.
> > Then it will be easy-to-pull for Len, right?
> 
> Cross maintainers merging is painful after all. Even I split the patches
> as you proposed, I may need to wait another 2 merge windows to merge the
> code. To make it goes more smoothly, I suggest to merge all the code in
> Len's tree after getting ack from Jesse.
> 
> Hi, Len and Jesse, how about my suggestion?

Yeah, it seems like the bulk of it is ACPI related, so going through
Len's tree is fine with me.  The PCI portion seems reasonable assuming
you include Hidetoshi-san's suggestions, you can add my Ack for now
(I'll yell if I find something I don't like in your next post).

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/