Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] add new platform driver for PCI RC

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 05 February 2016 10:44:29 Joao Pinto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/4/2016 11:43 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> What do you think?
> > 
> > I don't think the "dw" part is relevant (none of the other
> > DesignWare-based drivers includes it in the driver or file name).
> > 
> > How do people typically refer to this board?
> > 
> > I really like "synopsys" because it fits the pattern of being
> > recognizable and pronounceable like "altera", "designware", "qcom",
> > "keystone", "layerscape", "tegra", etc.  But I can't tell whether it's
> > too generic.
> > 
> > "ipk" or "haps" would be fine with me.  I think it's OK if it doesn't
> > cover 100% of the possible systems.
> 
> I think we should follow the iproc example: pcie-iproc-platform.c
> In this case we would have pcie-designware-platform.c
> I think this would be the best name because the driver is a non soc specific
> designware platform driver.
> 
> Arnd and Bjorn agree on this name?

Sorry, I did not realize that your submission was for the generic dw-pcie
implementation rather than a particular product integrating it.

I think in this case, we should do this completely differently:

How about putting all the new code into drivers/pci/host/pcie-designware.c
as functions that can be used by the other drivers in absence of a chip
specific handler?

Instead of providing a new instance of struct pcie_host_ops, maybe add
it as a default implementation in dw_pcie_link_up() and dw_pcie_host_init()
for drivers that don't provide their own. "hisi_pcie_host_ops" currently
provides no host_init() callback function, so you will have to change
the hisi frontend to a provide nop-function.

For all other drivers, check if they can be changed to use your generic
implementation and remove their private callbacks if possible.

I think the MSI implementation should be split out into a separate file
though, as not everyone uses this.

	Arnd