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 595562E888C for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:33:44 +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=1771410824; cv=none; b=ZuSV3e/rdTK0RTgV110fQzzf1zEPgbyMzZ5Cxze8tSVUPX+5rNkAhH6sUWFIY4TQdz4SvOr6qdBQxHC63xbdH3QDTGrfLJZ+KzcVJxgNoksIK7HTvzwIsfDGQOm5F2ZFaOXilBfpUmbOUwHTiuweYrIzuaEfWD89ZldxSyAGLq0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771410824; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fCM6E0Q4rm6GC2e/QupXeBoowNr6ZoW/sIaT/FalB0k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=b1K10xbbmZa13QGWpex/BDUIWfkC4s5TwnMJ0B3LnoSVmGp/cVrr+4n5Nw/V7lkl6UIzr8W59REYCxqT1+wt9XMjppBVNo9Jmvq+YM4xmkbtoZJnLsVBiHEYT/l0uFD7FARYztmD4nKcvQlyWXRiXmockfaU4WJmLQiaODP68dE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=UtmoGAPI; 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="UtmoGAPI" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB771C19421; Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:33:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1771410823; bh=fCM6E0Q4rm6GC2e/QupXeBoowNr6ZoW/sIaT/FalB0k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UtmoGAPIBmfgaMTcaRC6x+UBsUy4H/oTRNJvbyqfR3PvL1LRIUk7m+j/TsvHp8w9I rzIYPDGq0Pb521mCtG2yiq+Y49oocd0H+KczSioAUfwIfwm+eCQfb5BNiCD9qgKF1w T2pQBuCrCPE3PcANhHELGFrmAGnCConQbstq8N0Ct3MtfnyP/mQM6GA5kbGD2pAyTv cTaqSP3m083tBg76R2aLSaGnNV05MifoAH/uO8NU3DJY99usZyMBAInceuFPZ0MIWj p8b3tl49T4LxCA3XYguv14KcLH8QE/ImumcLHyUIuWJQwm6uKJSDbWfc2nZ+lCF7Fd s0UDAc1j3LnVw== Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:33:39 +0100 From: Niklas Cassel To: Frank Li Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Bjorn Helgaas , Manikanta Maddireddy , Koichiro Den , Damien Le Moal , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] PCI: endpoint: Introduce pci_epc_bar_type BAR_DISABLED Message-ID: References: <20260217212707.2450423-11-cassel@kernel.org> <20260217212707.2450423-15-cassel@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@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: On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 05:03:29PM -0500, Frank Li wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 10:27:10PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > Add a pci_epc_bar_type BAR_64BIT_UPPER to more clearly differentiate > > s/BAR_64BIT_UPPER/BAR_DISABLED/ > > > BAR_DISABLED from BAR_RESERVED. > > from BAR_RESERVED. > > > > > This BAR type will only be used for a BAR that the EPC driver should > > disable. (Unlike a BAR_RESERVED, which is still enabled.) > > confused. it looks, "this bar type will be never used by EPC drivers" I could write it as: "This BAR type will only be used to describe a BAR that the EPC driver should disable, and will thus never be available to an EPF drive. (Unlike BAR_RESERVED, which will never by be disabled by default by an EPC driver.)" Is that more clear? Kind regards, Niklas