Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/19] ath11k: Remove core PCI references from PCI common code

From: Kalle Valo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:17:25 +0200

Manikanta Pubbisetty <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 1/28/2022 3:50 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Manikanta Pubbisetty <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> Remove core PCI and ath11k PCI references(struct ath11k_pci)
>>> from PCI common code. Since, PCI common code will be used
>>> by hybrid bus devices, this code should be independent
>>> from ATH11K PCI references and Linux core PCI references
>>> like struct pci_dev.
>>>
>>> Since this change introduces function callbacks for bus wakeup
>>> and bus release operations, wakeup_mhi HW param is no longer
>>> needed and hence it is removed completely. Alternatively, bus
>>> wakeup/release ops for QCA9074 are initialized to NULL as
>>> QCA9704 does not need bus wakeup/release for register accesses.
>>>
>>> Tested-on: WCN6750 hw1.0 AHB WLAN.MSL.1.0.1-00573-QCAMSLSWPLZ-1
>>> Tested-on: WCN6855 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-01720.1-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_LITE-1
>>> Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.5.0.1-01100-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
>>> Tested-on: IPQ8074 hw2.0 AHB WLAN.HK.2.4.0.1-00192-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Pubbisetty <[email-masked]>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> @@ -651,6 +653,13 @@ struct ath11k_bus_params {
>>>   	bool fixed_bdf_addr;
>>>   	bool fixed_mem_region;
>>>   	bool static_window_map;
>>> +	struct {
>>> +		void (*wakeup)(struct ath11k_base *ab);
>>> +		void (*release)(struct ath11k_base *ab);
>>> +		int (*get_msi_irq)(struct ath11k_base *ab, unsigned int vector);
>>> +		void (*window_write32)(struct ath11k_base *ab, u32 offset, u32 value);
>>> +		u32 (*window_read32)(struct ath11k_base *ab, u32 offset);
>>> +	} ops;
>>>   };
>>
>> Please don't use bus_params for this, I'm starting to suspect that we
>> actually need to remove struct ath11k_bus_params altogether. It would be
>> cleaner to have separate 'struct ath11k_pci_ops' or something like that.
>>
>
> Sure, something like 'struct ath11k_bus_ops' in ath11k_base struct
> would be appropriate.

But we have 'struct ath11k_hif_ops' already, and that's basically
ath11k_bus_ops with a confusing name :) (IIRC HIF means Host InterFace,
or something like that.) So having both ath11k_bus_ops and
ath11k_hif_ops would become even more confusing.

You are basically abstracting out PCI functionality, that's why I
suggested ath11k_pci_ops. But yeah, naming is hard :)

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches