From: Guilherme Giacomo Simoes <trintaeoitogc@gmail.com>
To: helgaas@kernel.org
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, scott@spiteful.org,
trintaeoitogc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] PCI: cpci: remove unused fields
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:06:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250215020637.217456-1-trintaeoitogc@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250213212627.GA129476@bhelgaas>
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> There are no implementations of ->set_power() or ->get_power(), are
> there? If not, we can just remove them and the calls to them.
>
> I don't see why we should add SLOT_ENABLED.
Are not implementations of set_power() and get_power().
I removed this funcions and in enable_slot(), disable_slot() and
cpci_get_power_status() I use a `flags` field that I create in
cpci_hp_controller_ops struct. I created this `flags` for store a power_status
and use this in enable_slot(), disable_slot() and cpci_get_power_status() that
before uses a set_power() and get_power(). I do this way, because I seeing this
patter in another pci subsystems. In adittion on this, the flags can be used
for store anothers values.
But the Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> say:
"If neither get_power nor set_power where defined in any driver, then
cpci_get_power_status() was always returning 1.
IIUC, now it may return 1 or 0 depending of if enable_slot() or
disable_slot() have been called."
Do you think that is better we only return 1 in pci_get_power_status() and
remove SLOT_ENABLED and `flags` field?
Thanks,
Guilherme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-15 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-13 17:39 [RESEND PATCH] PCI: cpci: remove unused fields Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
2025-02-13 20:44 ` Christophe JAILLET
2025-02-15 2:10 ` Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
2025-02-15 8:56 ` Christophe JAILLET
2025-02-15 14:05 ` Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
2025-02-13 21:26 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2025-02-15 2:06 ` Guilherme Giacomo Simoes [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-01-30 14:01 Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
2025-01-16 15:55 Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
2025-01-02 15:26 Guilherme Giacomo Simoes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250215020637.217456-1-trintaeoitogc@gmail.com \
--to=trintaeoitogc@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=scott@spiteful.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox