Re: [PATCH v25 01/11] sfc: add cxl support

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Hi Alejandro, similar to the approach taken with the CXL port error
handling series [1], I propose that additional changes to this
implementation be handled incrementally.

There may still be something that should be rebased out of the history,
but we have passed the point where fixes on top of stable commits starts
to be a better working model.

[1]: http://lore.kernel.org/69c98caef1348_178904100e0@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch

One warning below...

alejandro.lucero-palau@ wrote:
> From: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@amd.com>
> 
> Add CXL initialization based on new CXL API for accel drivers and make
> it dependent on kernel CXL configuration.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero <alucerop@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Acked-by: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
[..]
> +	/* Create a cxl_dev_state embedded in the cxl struct using cxl core api
> +	 * specifying no mbox available.
> +	 */
> +	cxl = devm_cxl_dev_state_create(&pci_dev->dev, CXL_DEVTYPE_DEVMEM,
> +					pci_dev->dev.id, dvsec, struct efx_cxl,
> +					cxlds, false);
> +
> +	if (!cxl)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	probe_data->cxl = cxl;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void efx_cxl_exit(struct efx_probe_data *probe_data)
> +{
> +}

Not a driver I maintain so feel free to disregard, but if you are going
to have an exit handler, then you also want an explicit
devm_cxl_dev_state_destroy() API.

As a reviewer I do not want to always remember that some of this
driver's resources are cleaned up in the ->remove() callback and others
are cleaned up post ->remove() by the devres core. It is either 100%
explicit release or 100% implicit release if I have my druthers.