From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253482E040D; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769507278; cv=none; b=Y+dfH2TuYoLDFTdFhQPChIKBObytLg2PlM0aSiK0yAe0AS5MAI183ZSNrAriMH6jXxclcUhrGTix2TbsQcW4qpQcKjH9X57DYxlHTwUg1xbn+HwrqyP6KgC5ypCgOwT2biFH0vEAUmnWbytNKCwSFpYO0z/d7RXuHr0s/G8NgrY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769507278; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TQl+XUnTjtRtOXjHCbKd3JXbhimpuS3lMlbUrcmWca0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rQCCILqOQ5i9Mby/bAyQKrdSXYQqRdZysTtEf37k1TsGK9Wog/uSLJ1Gkr9oPGTLWLLSkh5mqvaq09yxVJCjlW8TMUaVCi1waxfzRO3zPJaj2L//LlAUeJOoCPBk19a9I4Kybvq/+f6lvF//L7uuHgBm0orTlRQcaF/kUhjAnD4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ubfpjJ7h; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ubfpjJ7h" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CB7AC116C6; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 09:47:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769507277; bh=TQl+XUnTjtRtOXjHCbKd3JXbhimpuS3lMlbUrcmWca0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ubfpjJ7huxAWOL/vZ6373Nhr9wG0Ti6fd1/zGOuCcOdYlZ0LBlnJRjr3KWcfoShmm TBMjslzWysN1Zoo8pwa+xlbVDJdy8SDR10hkRFDwAJV2pg1hKoe5+cV5uYk+p7kKad lASJLOAbxf3rlxaRokoF+6ZMU4tHGMHGsqJvp9dFhmnY1lND+QkZk/omtE3i/k1b6i kgN8JEA9YE+4zHm4OeCXyadhbDC0wil8uUuNfsdAoAHSgqjYwqKQ+7uK5UTKO+wp50 efZSIc5SF+t0dF1nskPoAWa4V78qN9/8FitAN1NTiPVZuo9MqOMa+2EhDLMFfRnRgq aJ1mWUXRJYqJA== Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:47:52 +0100 From: Niklas Cassel To: Koichiro Den Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Bjorn Helgaas , Jonathan Corbet , Frank.Li@nxp.com, dlemoal@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: endpoint: pci-epf-test: Allow overriding default BAR sizes Message-ID: References: <20260123180747.827357-2-cassel@kernel.org> <23lxq2hvynxqmothnkhjtarpklin3prv7tvjlvy3xjnzpn5kdj@ks2qay2tgzc2> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <23lxq2hvynxqmothnkhjtarpklin3prv7tvjlvy3xjnzpn5kdj@ks2qay2tgzc2> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 12:44:13PM +0900, Koichiro Den wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 07:07:48PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > Add bar{0,1,2,3,4,5}_size attributes in configfs, so that the user is not > > restricted to run pci-epf-test with the hardcoded BAR size values defined > > in pci-epf-test.c. > > > > This code is shamelessly more or less copy pasted from pci-epf-vntb.c > > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel > > This is useful, thanks! > I've used this patch as a dependency for my series [1], and it works fine. > > Tested-by: Koichiro Den > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20260124145012.2794108-1-den@valinux.co.jp/ Thank you for testing! Just to clarify: Your series is currently not depending on this patch, and neither do I think that it should. There will be a trivial conflict when PCI maintainers will try to merge them. But the solution is to use your new values: -static size_t bar_size[] = { 512, 512, 1024, 16384, 131072, 1048576 }; +static size_t bar_size[] = { 131072, 131072, 131072, 131072, 131072, 1048576 }; With my new variable name (default_bar_size): -static size_t bar_size[] = { 512, 512, 1024, 16384, 131072, 1048576 }; +/* default BAR sizes, can be overridden by the user using configfs */ +static size_t default_bar_size[] = { 512, 512, 1024, 16384, 131072, 1048576 }; So AFAICT, it should a one line conflict resolution. Since it is so trivial, it would be nice if the PCI maintainers could handle that when applying, but I guess in worst case, one of us will need to respin. Kind regards, Niklas