From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261405AbUJETBP (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:01:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261724AbUJETBP (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:01:15 -0400 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:10399 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261405AbUJETBF (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:01:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4162EF65.4080108@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:00:53 -0500 From: Colin Ngam Reply-To: cngam@sgi.com Organization: SSO User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; IRIX64 IP35; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040105 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wilcox , Grant Grundler CC: Jesse Barnes , "Luck, Tony" , Pat Gefre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization References: <200410050843.44265.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20041005162201.GC18567@cup.hp.com> <20041005174558.GZ16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041005174558.GZ16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: >On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:22:01AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > > >>pci_root_ops should be static. It's only intended for ACPI. >> >> > >What I had intended when I wrote this code was that platforms that didn't >want to use the generic SAL code (and why not? It doesn't seem like it >should be the hardest thing in the world to move your hacks into SAL) >was that people should override > > struct pci_raw_ops *raw_pci_ops = &pci_sal_ops; > >by just assigning raw_pci_ops in their own code. I haven't looked at >the SGI code yet, but this is how arch/i386/pci/direct.c (for example) >works. > Hi Matthew, Yes, after looking at Grant's review/suggestion, we found that we can actually just use raw_pci_ops. This will work well for us. We have incoorporated this change. No changes in pci/pci.c needed. Thanks you for your information. Thanks. colin > > > >>Maybe rename pci_root_ops to "acpi_pci_ops" would make that clearer. >> >> > >No. Don't rename it to anything ACPI specific. It isn't. It's just an >alternative route to access configuration space when you don't even >have a PCI bus, let alone a device. > > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Colin Ngam Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:00:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization Message-Id: <4162EF65.4080108@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200410050843.44265.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20041005162201.GC18567@cup.hp.com> <20041005174558.GZ16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041005174558.GZ16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox , Grant Grundler Cc: Jesse Barnes , "Luck, Tony" , Pat Gefre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: >On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:22:01AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > > >>pci_root_ops should be static. It's only intended for ACPI. >> >> > >What I had intended when I wrote this code was that platforms that didn't >want to use the generic SAL code (and why not? It doesn't seem like it >should be the hardest thing in the world to move your hacks into SAL) >was that people should override > > struct pci_raw_ops *raw_pci_ops = &pci_sal_ops; > >by just assigning raw_pci_ops in their own code. I haven't looked at >the SGI code yet, but this is how arch/i386/pci/direct.c (for example) >works. > Hi Matthew, Yes, after looking at Grant's review/suggestion, we found that we can actually just use raw_pci_ops. This will work well for us. We have incoorporated this change. No changes in pci/pci.c needed. Thanks you for your information. Thanks. colin > > > >>Maybe rename pci_root_ops to "acpi_pci_ops" would make that clearer. >> >> > >No. Don't rename it to anything ACPI specific. It isn't. It's just an >alternative route to access configuration space when you don't even >have a PCI bus, let alone a device. > > >