From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 14:24:06 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] PCI: implement Devres interface to map PCI config space Message-ID: <20170302192406.GA8519@wtj.duckdns.org> References: <20170227151436.18698-1-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20170227151436.18698-8-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20170302120546.GB17277@red-moon> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Wenrui Li , Gabriele Paoloni , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , Shawn Lin , Will Deacon , Michal Simek , Thierry Reding , Tanmay Inamdar , Linux-Arch , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Jonathan Corbet , Pratyush Anand , Russell King , Jon Mason , Murali Karicheri , Catalin Marinas , Arnd Bergmann , Bharat Kumar Gogada , Ray Jui , John Garry , Joao Pinto , Bjorn Helgaas , Mingkai Hu , linux-arm Mailing List , Thomas Petazzoni , Jingoo Han , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Stanimir Varbanov , Minghuan Lian , Zhou Wang , Roy Zang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+bjorn=helgaas.com@lists.infradead.org List-ID: Hello, On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:50:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > I thought about that and did not do it because here we are remapping > > resources that are _not_ PCI bus resources (ie it is not PCI BARs we > > are remapping), keeping the devm_* prefix would be more consistent > > to the typical device drivers remapping functions pattern (ie a > > typical PCI host controller driver would mix devm_ and pcim_ calls > > which is a bit hard to parse), that was my rationale. > > > > I am not too fussed about that either way, I am happy to update it to > > pcim_* though, it is Bjorn/Arnd's decision. > > I would vote for pcim_*() variant. Me too, for brevity. > >> 2. If you may notice there is no separate pcim_*map*() stuff, they are > >> dynamically adapting to the case. > > > > I do not understand what you mean here I would ask you to elaborate > > a bit more please so that I can do something about it. > > Oh, sorry, there are two examples currently, i.e. > pci_enable_msi()/pci_enable_msix() and pci_request_region*() which has > no "m" in the name, but are managed on release by pcim_release(). > Some developers consider this as a bad idea, but so far no patch has > been sent to introduce pcim_*() variants of those. > > So, regarding to your stuff, I would stick with "pcim" prefix. Sounds good to me. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel