Re: [PATCH] (-mm) drivers/pci/msi: explicit declaration of msi_register

[Mark Maule]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:32:52PM -0500, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Mark Maule wrote:
> >>There is another problem that CONFIG_IA64_GENERIC still doesn't
> >>build due to error in SGI SN specific code.
> >>It needs additional fix.
> >
> >Ok, looking back at some of my original patches, it seems like the
> >declaration of msi_ops got moved from pci.h to and some forward 
> >declarations
> >in ia64/msi.h were removed.  This patch corrects the build problems.
> 
> But,
> 
> Greg said:
> >these are core pci things that no one else should care about.
> 
> Andrew said:
> >a declaration for msi_register(), in drivers/pci/pci.h.
> > We don't want to add a duplicated declaration like this.
> 
> I think the idea already gets objections.
> 
> >The reason for putting struct msi_ops in pci.h is so that msi code that
> >resides outside of drivers/pci can use the declaration without having to
> >reach down into drivers/pci.
> 
> The code in arch/ia64/sn/pci/msi.c looks much like
> drivers/pci/msi-apic.c.
> Why don't you move them to drivers/pci/msi-sgi-sn.c or something?

I didn't do that originally 'cause I didn't think drivers/pci was the place
for platform-specific code.

That said, I am not against moving sn/pci/msi.c into drivers if that is
more acceptable than putting msi_ops into pci.h.

Greg/Andrew?

Mark
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/