Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: [..] [trim multiple pages of uncommented context, please trim your replies] > > +/** > > + * pci_tsm_pf0_initialize() - common 'struct pci_tsm_pf0' initialization > > + * @pdev: Physical Function 0 PCI device > > + * @tsm: context to initialize > > + */ > > +int pci_tsm_pf0_initialize(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct pci_tsm_pf0 *tsm) > > Here it is: struct pci_tsm_pf0 *tsm (it is really a "dsm") All of the context returned by the TSM driver is a "tsm" context, the only time use "dsm" is in referring to the actual pci_dev that runs the SPDM session. > In pci_tsm: struct pci_dev *dsm (alright) > > May be we need some distinction between PF0's pci_dev and pci_tsm_pf0 but still these are DSMs. > > In pci_tsm_pf0 it is: struct pci_tsm tsm, imho "base" is less confusing (I keep catching myself thinking it is a pointer to tsm_dev). Ok, I can change it to base. > "tsm" would be what you call "tsm_dev" which is ok but seeing short "tsm" used as "dsm" or "TSM data for this pci_dev" is confusing. > > s/pci_tsm/pci_tsm_ctx/ and s/tsm/tsm_ctx/ ? Thanks, What is a tsm_ctx? The s/pci_tsm/pci_tsm_ctx/ rename is not adding more clarity for me. If Aneesh or Yilun also find that rename clarifying I will switch. For v5 I will stick with 'struct pci_tsm' as the PCI object that wraps TSM driver produced objects. The reason I do not think of "pci_tsm" as a "tsm_dev" is because PCI is always a consumer of an outside of PCI TSM service provided, PCI does not have a TSM concept internal to it.
