Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] fpga: dfl: pci: Use pci_find_vsec_capability() when looking for DFL

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 11:10:31PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 02:01:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 06:59:25PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 2:28 PM Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On 11/10/21 12:24 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 10:27:58AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > > >> On 11/9/21 10:05 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 07:55:43AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > > >>>> On 11/9/21 7:41 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > >>>>> + voff = pci_find_vsec_capability(dev, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_VSEC_ID_INTEL_DFLS);
> > > > >>>> This may be a weakness in the origin code, but intel isn't the exclusive
> > > > >>>> user of DFL.
> > > > >>> This does not change the original code. If you think so, this can be extended
> > > > >>> later on.
> > > > >> I would rather see this fixed now or explained why this isn't a problem.
> > > > > This is out of scope of this change in a few ways:
> > > > >   - we don't do 2+ things in one patch
> > > > >   - the change doesn't change behaviour
> > > > >   - the change is a simple cleanup
> > > > >   - another vendor may well have quite different VSEC ID for DFL
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think that it should be needed, one can come up with it later on.
> > > >
> > > > Fixing a problem is more useful than a cleanup. The fix should come first.
> > > 
> > > What do you mean by that? The original code never worked with what you
> > > are suggesting. There is nothing to fix in terms of "fix". What you
> > > are proposing is a feature. And as we know the features are going into
> > > the kernel in a natural order, means fixes - priority 1, cleanups /
> > > refactoring as prerequisites to the feature enabling - priority 2,
> > > feature - priority 3, other cleanups and code improvements - priority
> > > 4.
> > > 
> > > That said, the proposed change definitely falls into category 2. It
> > > makes the proposed feature to be easily realized.
> > > 
> > > Also, do not forget that vendor specific stuff is _by definition_
> > > vendor specific, and the proposed feature is doubtful until you prove
> > > there is another vendor-id pair.
> > 
> > Interestingly that you included
> > 8607d9c1bd57 ("fpga: dfl-pci: Use pci_find_vsec_capability() to simplify the code")
> > without even letting me know...
> 
> I'm sorry. Apparently I forgot what we've discussed in 2021.
> 
> In 2021, I was waiting for some more comments although I was already
> good at your patch, but sadly I didn't follow up and missed it. In
> 2023, I was pretty sure no more comment and I could just apply.

The job is done and this is good. Thank you.
One thing less to carry for me :-)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko