From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bmailout1.hostsharing.net (bmailout1.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.100]) (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 46C091EB5F8; Sun, 22 Feb 2026 13:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771765626; cv=none; b=sLkawoWB/WInsfeC4ahGUxpuv9imHiUcgolz6cQ43e4r6gjf4IKOAGw3tjgm8qFpDg1xL0J+Lxbz6BsRnydSbNRaGGR4VQ+t6q7ATarWb0TuTgEGmEZgRqpeeps4bXbSuvlgpaa8PZXbs/kSQ953mqLeFyaVOTNJlXE7YSirSqo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771765626; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IB0vTf1ok/9bz8OTUdwo2iavt6xyOws666hF9uOTCKQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=m2+llR51VK6XLcMOWUjSM+j6JHnhc6NDZEX/VZ5EECazIQHQJcSqacdBrIHk9a/R2fGWlIjA0/izlHw2jCarpvcKHp7x4rPCBa3d3G7FlWA7tVxtek5vKwGzKHakV7QgsLKSS8LmJZquljjrcBNdBgZpJShTatT7trlmqb6dqAg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=83.223.95.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=wunner.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=h08.hostsharing.net Received: from h08.hostsharing.net (h08.hostsharing.net [83.223.95.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384 client-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) client-digest SHA384) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "GlobalSign GCC R6 AlphaSSL CA 2025" (verified OK)) by bmailout1.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 666F1203064F; Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:06:56 +0100 (CET) Received: by h08.hostsharing.net (Postfix, from userid 100393) id 557734C89A; Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:06:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:06:56 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Aksh Garg Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, corbet@lwn.net, cassel@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, s-vadapalli@ti.com, danishanwar@ti.com, srk@ti.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] PCI/DOE: Add DOE mailbox support for endpoint functions Message-ID: References: <20260213123603.420941-1-a-garg7@ti.com> <20260213123603.420941-4-a-garg7@ti.com> 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: <20260213123603.420941-4-a-garg7@ti.com> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 06:06:02PM +0530, Aksh Garg wrote: > Add the DOE support for PCIe endpoint devices, enabling endpoint > functions to process the DOE requests from the host. The implementation > provides framework APIs for controller drivers to register mailboxes, > protocol handler registration for different DOE data object types, and > request processing with workqueues ensuring sequential handling per > mailbox. The Discovery protocol is handled internally by the DOE core. This looks like it is largely a duplication of drivers/pci/doe.c, including the asynchronous request support that was originally added but was never needed and so was clearly a mistake. I'm wondering why the async suport is needed in the endpoint case? Why can't this (only) be synchronous? Thanks, Lukas