From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kenji Kaneshige Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocation support [2/3] Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:22:46 +0900 Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <415B8A16.9070101@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <4157A9D7.4090605@jp.fujitsu.com> <415A28B9.6080504@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Linux Kernel , long , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartmann , Len Brown , tony.luck@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > Ok i think i may have not conveyed my meaning properly, my mistake. What i > think would be better is if the architectures which have no-op > acpi_unregister_gsi to declare them as static inline in header files. For > architectures (such as ia64) which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, > we can declare them in a .c file with the proper exports etc. > Now I (maybe) properly understand what you mean :-). But I still have one concern about your idea. For architectures which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, we need to declare "extern void acpi_unregister_gsi(int gsi);" in include/linux/acpi.h that is common to all architectures. I think include/linux/acpi.h is the best place to declare it because acpi_register_gsi(), opposite portion of acpi_unregister_gsi(), is declared in it. On the other hand, for archtectures that have no-op acpi_unregister_gsi(), acpi_unregister_gsi() is defined as static inline function in arch specific header files. This looks not natural to me. How do you think? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige