From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: ACPI vs PCI: configuration space Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:30:03 -0700 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20030618223003.GA2134@kroah.com> References: <20030618221752.GY24357@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030618221752.GY24357-+pPCBgu9SkPzIGdyhVEDUDl5KyyQGfY2kSSpQ9I8OhVaa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-ia64-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:17:52PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > It's kind of annoying to invent some structures and put some values into > them only to pull them out again. This leads to try 5 ... > > struct acpi_pci_ops { > int (*read)(int domain, int bus, int devfn, int where, int size, u32 *val); > int (*write)(int domain, int bus, int devfn, int where, int size, u32 val); > } > > It reduces stack consumption, which is a clear win ... it's also _incredibly_ > easy to implement since all the existing pci_ops call functions which take > exactly this form. > > Go on, approve Try 5. You know you want to ;-) So for i386, what would domain be? Anyway, yeah, I agree with try 5, that seems the most sane. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner. Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission! INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php