On 10/1/25 3:52 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Thu Oct 2, 2025 at 12:38 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >> On 10/1/25 6:52 AM, Zhi Wang wrote: >>> On 1.10.2025 13.32, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>> On Wed Oct 1, 2025 at 3:22 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote: >>>>> On 9/30/25 5:29 PM, Alistair Popple wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-10-01 at 08:07 +1000, John Hubbard <[email protected]> wrote... >> ... >> As I mentioned in the other fork of this thread, I do think this is >> a good start. So unless someone disagrees, I'd like to go with this >> series (perhaps with better wording in the commit messages, and maybe >> a better comment above the probe() failure return) for now. > > Indicating whether the driver supports VFs through a boolean in struct > pci_driver is about the same effort (well, maybe slightly more), but solves > the > problem in a cleaner way since it avoids probe() being called in the first > place. Other existing drivers benefit from that as well.
Yes, that is cleaner, and like you say, nearly as easy. > > Forget about the SR-IOV RFC I was talking about; I really just intended to > offer > to take care of that. :) I can send out a v2 with that "PCI driver bool: supports VFs" approach, glad to do that. thanks, -- John Hubbard
