From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge Support Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:10:15 -0700 Message-ID: <20120714171015.GB25775@kroah.com> References: <1342215900-3358-1-git-send-email-jon.mason@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jiang To: Jon Mason Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1342215900-3358-1-git-send-email-jon.mason@intel.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 02:44:59PM -0700, Jon Mason wrote: > +static int max_num_cbs = 2; > +module_param(max_num_cbs, uint, 0644); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_num_cbs, "Maximum number of NTB transport connections"); > + > +static bool no_msix; > +module_param(no_msix, bool, 0644); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_msix, "Do not allow MSI-X interrupts to be selected"); How would a user, or a distro, know to set these options? Why are they even options at all? > +struct ntb_device { > + struct pci_dev *pdev; > + struct msix_entry *msix_entries; > + void __iomem *reg_base; > + struct ntb_mw mw[NTB_NUM_MW]; > + struct { > + unsigned int max_spads; > + unsigned int max_db_bits; > + unsigned int msix_cnt; > + } limits; > + struct { > + void __iomem *pdb; > + void __iomem *pdb_mask; > + void __iomem *sdb; > + void __iomem *sbar2_xlat; > + void __iomem *sbar4_xlat; > + void __iomem *spad_write; > + void __iomem *spad_read; > + void __iomem *lnk_cntl; > + void __iomem *lnk_stat; > + void __iomem *spci_cmd; > + } reg_ofs; > + void *ntb_transport; > + void (*event_cb)(void *handle, unsigned int event); Shouldn't the event be an enum? > + struct ntb_db_cb *db_cb; > + unsigned char hw_type; > + unsigned char conn_type; > + unsigned char dev_type; > + unsigned char num_msix; > + unsigned char bits_per_vector; > + unsigned char max_cbs; > + unsigned char link_status; > + struct delayed_work hb_timer; > + unsigned long last_ts; > +}; Why isn't this either a 'struct device' itself, or why isn't the 'struct pci_device' embedded within it? What controls the lifetime of this device? Why doesn't it show up in sysfs? Don't you want it to show up in the global device tree? > +static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(ntb_pci_tbl) = { > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_B2B_BWD)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_B2B_JSF)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_CLASSIC_JSF)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_RP_JSF)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_RP_SNB)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_B2B_SNB)}, > + {PCI_VDEVICE(INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_NTB_CLASSIC_SNB)}, > + {0} > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, ntb_pci_tbl); > + > +static struct ntb_device *ntbdev; You can really only have just one of these in the whole system? Is that wise? Why isn't it dynamic and tied to the pci device itself as a child? thanks, greg k-h