Re: [PATCH v6 07/12] PCI: Refactor matching logic for pci_dev_acs_ops

[Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@google.com>]

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 08:24:05PM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> Refactor the logic to match devices to pci_dev_acs_ops by factoring out
> the loop and device matching into its own routine. This eliminates some
> duplicate code between pci_dev_specific_enable_acs() and
> pci_dev_specific_disable_acs_redir(), and will also be used in a
> subsequent commit to check if a device requires device-specific
> enable_acs() during a Live Update.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/quirks.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 

[...]

>  } pci_dev_acs_ops[] = {
>  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_ANY_ID,
> +	    .match = pci_quirk_intel_pch_acs_match,
>  	    .enable_acs = pci_quirk_enable_intel_pch_acs,
>  	},
>  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_ANY_ID,
> +	    .match = pci_quirk_intel_spt_pch_acs_match,
>  	    .enable_acs = pci_quirk_enable_intel_spt_pch_acs,
>  	    .disable_acs_redir = pci_quirk_disable_intel_spt_pch_acs_redir,
>  	},
>  };
>  
> -int pci_dev_specific_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
> +static const struct pci_dev_acs_ops *pci_dev_acs_ops_get(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  {
>  	const struct pci_dev_acs_ops *p;
> -	int i, ret;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pci_dev_acs_ops); i++) {
>  		p = &pci_dev_acs_ops[i];
> @@ -5481,33 +5475,29 @@ int pci_dev_specific_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  		     p->vendor == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
>  		    (p->device == dev->device ||
>  		     p->device == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
> -		    p->enable_acs) {
> -			ret = p->enable_acs(dev);
> -			if (ret >= 0)
> -				return ret;
> -		}
> +		    p->match(dev))
> +			return p;

Nit:
Should we check if (p->match != NULL) like we check for p->enable_acs &
p->disable_acs_redir(). 

Otherwise, it seems like we're mandating the existence of a match op in
the pci_dev_acs_ops here? Today, we just have two Intel entries in that
array, both of which need the match op. However, AFAICT, it shouldn't be
mandatory for future SoCs that might only need a simple vid + devid match

[...]

with that nit:
Reviewed-by: Pranjal Shrivastava <praan@google.com>

Thanks,
Praan