Re: [PATCH v8 14/16] cxl/pci: Remove unnecessary CXL Endpoint handling helper functions

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:47:15 -0500
Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com> wrote:

> The cxl_handle_endpoint_cor_ras()/cxl_handle_endpoint_ras() functions
> are unnecessary helper function and only used for Endpoints. Remove these
> functions because they are not necessary and do not align with a common
> handling API for all CXL devices' errors.
Having done this, what does the double underscore in the naming denote?
I assume original intent was perhaps that only the wrappers should
ever be called.  If that's not the case after this change maybe get
rid of the __ prefix?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 17 ++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> index f2139b382839..a67925dfdbe1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> @@ -670,11 +670,6 @@ static void __cxl_handle_cor_ras(struct device *cxl_dev, struct device *pcie_dev
>  	trace_cxl_aer_correctable_error(cxl_dev, pcie_dev, serial, status);
>  }
>  
> -static void cxl_handle_endpoint_cor_ras(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> -{
> -	return __cxl_handle_cor_ras(&cxlds->cxlmd->dev, NULL, cxlds->serial, cxlds->regs.ras);
Previously second parameter was NULL. After this change you pass &pdev->dev.
That makes it look at least like there is a functional change here.
If this doesn't matter perhaps you should explain why in the description.

> -}
> -
>  /* CXL spec rev3.0 8.2.4.16.1 */
>  static void header_log_copy(void __iomem *ras_base, u32 *log)
>  {
> @@ -732,14 +727,8 @@ static pci_ers_result_t __cxl_handle_ras(struct device *cxl_dev, struct device *
>  	return PCI_ERS_RESULT_PANIC;
>  }
>  
> -static bool cxl_handle_endpoint_ras(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds)
> -{
> -	return __cxl_handle_ras(&cxlds->cxlmd->dev, NULL, cxlds->serial, cxlds->regs.ras);
> -}
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PCIEAER_CXL
>  
> -

Unrelated change. I think this ifdef was added earlier in series so avoid
adding the bonus line wherever it came from...

>  void cxl_port_cor_error_detected(struct device *cxl_dev,
>  				 struct cxl_prot_error_info *err_info)
>  {
> @@ -868,7 +857,8 @@ void cxl_cor_error_detected(struct device *dev, struct cxl_prot_error_info *err_
>  		if (cxlds->rcd)
>  			cxl_handle_rdport_errors(cxlds);
>  
> -		cxl_handle_endpoint_cor_ras(cxlds);
> +		__cxl_handle_cor_ras(&cxlds->cxlmd->dev, &pdev->dev,
> +				     cxlds->serial, cxlds->regs.ras);
>  	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_cor_error_detected, "CXL");
> @@ -907,7 +897,8 @@ pci_ers_result_t cxl_error_detected(struct device *dev,
>  		 * chance the situation is recoverable dump the status of the RAS
>  		 * capability registers and bounce the active state of the memdev.
>  		 */
> -		ue = cxl_handle_endpoint_ras(cxlds);
> +		ue = __cxl_handle_ras(&cxlds->cxlmd->dev, &pdev->dev,
> +				      cxlds->serial, cxlds->regs.ras);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (ue)