Re: [PATCH] ath9k: use unmanaged PCI functions in ath9k_pci_owl_loader

From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>,
	"Kalle Valo" <kvalo@kernel.org>,
	"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>,
	"Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	"Martin Blumenstingl" <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-actions@lists.infradead.org,
	"linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: use unmanaged PCI functions in ath9k_pci_owl_loader
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 23:07:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <651f8a62-4fa5-4ae8-ba1c-ce8ab4e4e58d@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y19ukuo3.fsf@toke.dk>

On 03.04.2024 23:23, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Using the device-managed versions has no benefit here, because
>> resources are released as part of the asynchronous fw loading.
>>
>> Actual reason why I got here is that I was looking for places with
>> dubious use of pcim_pin_device().
> 
> Could you please expand the commit message to explain what this means in
> a bit more detail? That will be helpful to someone who wants to
> understand what the difference between these versions is and why this
> change makes sense, but who is not that familiar with how these internal
> bits are really supposed to work. Someone like myself, in other words :)
> 
Sure. I'll add some more context in a v2.

> -Toke
Heiner