[PATCH 1/3] pci: introduce read_bridge/write_bridge pci ops

[helgaas@kernel.org (Bjorn Helgaas)]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:37:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 2:04:30 PM CEST Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:41:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:09:29 AM CEST Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > Hi Arnd,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:31:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > A lot of PCI host bridges require different methods for initiating
> > > > > type 0 and type 1 config space accesses, leading to duplication of
> > > > > code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This adds support for the two different kinds at the pci_ops
> > > > > level, with the newly added map_bridge/read_bridge/write_bridge
> > > > > operations for type 1 accesses.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When these are not set, we fall back to the regular map_bus/read/write
> > > > > operations, so all existing drivers keep working, and bridges that
> > > > > have identical operations continue to only require one set.
> > > > 
> > > > This adds new config accessor functions to struct pci_ops and makes
> > > > the callers responsible for figuring out which one to use.  The
> > > > benefit is to reduce code duplication in some host bridge drivers
> > > > (DesignWare and MVEBU so far).
> > > > 
> > > > From a design perspective, I'm not comfortable with moving this burden
> > > > from the host bridge drivers to the callers of the config accessors.
> > > ...
> > 
> > > Maybe we can simply change them to use the normal API and come up with
> > > a way to make the pci_ops harder to misuse? Would it make you feel better
> > > if we also renamed .read/.write into .read_type0/.write_type0 or something
> > > like that?
> > 
> > I'm trying to get a better feel for the tradeoff here.  It seems like
> > an API complication vs. code duplication.
> > 
> > I don't really think the callers should have to figure out which
> > accessor to use.  How much of a benefit do we really gain by
> > complicating the callers?  We've managed for quite a few years with
> > the current scheme, and it seems like only a couple new ARM platforms
> > would benefit.
> 
> I just did a count of the implementations of pci_ops: I found 107
> instances of 'struct pci_ops', and 67 of them treat type0 and type1
> access differently in some form.
> 
> I'd estimate that about half of them, or roughly a third of the total
> instances would benefit from my change, if we were to do them again.
> Clearly there is no need to change the existing code here when it works,
> unless the benefit is very clear and the code is actively maintained.
> 
> In some cases, the difference is only that the root bus has a limited
> set of devices that are allowed to be accessed, so there would
> likely be no benefit of this, compared to e.g. yet another callback
> that checks the validity.
> Some other instances have type0 registers at a different memory location
> from type1, some use different layout inside of that space, and some
> are completely different.

The type0/type1 distinction still seems out of place to me at the call
site.  Is there any other reason a caller would care about the
difference between type0 and type1?

Bjorn