Re: [PATCH v14 02/34] PCI: Update CXL DVSEC definitions

[dan.j.williams]

Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[..]
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> > index 6c4b6f19b18e..662582bdccf0 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> 
> 
> > +/* CXL r4.0, 8.1.3: PCIe DVSEC for CXL Device */
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE				0
> > +#define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CAP				0xA
> 
> Why drop the _DEVICE_ bit of these I'd kind of expect
> #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE_CAP
> to indicate which DVSEC it is in.

We got by without the redundant _DEVICE_ in the name to date, the port
DVSEC has the _PORT_ differentiation. In the interest of not needing to
review another version of this simple patch I vote leave well enough
alone. Will leave it to Bjorn if he wants to override.

[..]
> > +/* CXL r4.0, 8.1.6: GPF DVSEC for CXL Port */
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORT_GPF				4
> 
> Nothing like ambiguous naming in the CXL spec as the
> following fields sound like they are in the CXL_PORT dvsec
> but they aren't.  Well the spec avoids it with GPF_FOR_PORT
> but we don't want to go there.  I wonder...
> PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORTGPF maybe to avoid that?
> 
> Sigh. It's probably not worth it and does look horrible, so stick
> with these.

Not seeing a siginficant improvement in the suggestion.