[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH V3 0/2] pci: Provide a flag to access VPD through function 0

Rustad, Mark D mark.d.rustad at intel.com
Fri Jun 26 18:04:21 UTC 2015


> On Jun 17, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rustad, Mark D
> <mark.d.rustad at intel.com> wrote:
>> + Alex
>> 
>>> On Jun 5, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rustad at intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Mark D Rustad <mark.d.rustad at intel.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Many multi-function devices provide shared registers in extended
>>>> config space for accessing VPD. The behavior of these registers
>>>> means that the state must be tracked and access locked correctly
>>>> for accesses not to hang or worse. One way to meet these needs is
>>>> to always perform the accesses through function 0, thereby using
>>>> the state tracking and mutex that already exists.
>>>> 
>>>> To provide this behavior, add a dev_flags bit to indicate that this
>>>> should be done. This bit can then be set for any non-zero function
>>>> that needs to redirect such VPD access to function 0. Do not set
>>>> this bit on the zero function or there will be an infinite recursion.
>>>> 
>>>> The second patch uses this new flag to invoke this behavior on all
>>>> multi-function Intel Ethernet devices.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad at intel.com>
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in V2:
>>>> - Corrected a spelling error in a log message
>>>> - Added checks to see that the referenced function 0 is reasonable
>>>> Changes in V3:
>>>> - Don't leak a device reference
>>>> - Check that function 0 has VPD
>>>> - Make a helper for the function 0 checks
>>>> - Moved a multifunction check to the quirk patch
>>> 
>>> So does this series look acceptable now? I think I addressed the issues that Alex raised. Can these also be considered for -stable?
>> 
>> More than a week has passed without any comment. Is this going to be accepted or is there still an issue?
> 
> Sorry, Mark, I've just been busy with other issues and haven't had a
> chance to look at this yet.

Is there any chance of this getting into this merge window?

--
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/attachments/20150626/a9cce4ff/attachment-0001.asc>


More information about the Intel-wired-lan mailing list