From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:22257 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161420AbeCAUP3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:15:29 -0500 Message-ID: <1519935326.10722.370.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] r8169: switch to device-managed functions in probe (part 2) From: Andy Shevchenko To: Heiner Kallweit , nic_swsd@realtek.com, "David S . Miller" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:15:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20180301112735.28822-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20180301112735.28822-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2018-03-01 at 20:54 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > Am 01.03.2018 um 12:27 schrieb Andy Shevchenko: > > - rc = pci_request_regions(pdev, MODULENAME); > > + rc = pcim_iomap_regions(pdev, BIT(region), MODULENAME); > > if (rc < 0) { > > - netif_err(tp, probe, dev, "could not request > > regions\n"); > > + netif_err(tp, probe, dev, "cannot remap MMIO, > > aborting\n"); > > return rc; > > } > > > > > > + tp->mmio_addr = pcim_iomap_table(pdev)[region]; > > > > pcim_iomap_table() can return NULL in case of an error. No. > Shouldn't we catch this? No. Yeah, I'm a bit tired to explain everyone that pcim_iomap_table() will never fail if previous pcim_iomap_regions() not failed. > Typical benefit of switching to device-managed functions is that we > don't > have to clean up in the probe() error path and in remove(). With the > change here we don't have any such benefit and we just exchange two > calls > against two other calls w/o functional change (AFAICS). > Which benefit do you see justifying this patch? -67% statistics is a good sign, no? > However I don't know the PCI API's good enough to be able to judge > whether > one set of calls is preferable. More than above, it's about consistency. While you switch to devm_, for PCI driver it's naturally to go for pcim_. Esp. taking into account that pcim_enable_device() _is_ already there. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy