From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PCI: Add new method for registering PCI hosts Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:24:50 +0200 Message-ID: <6212651.41bebQZ9BM@wuerfel> References: <20160630151931.29216-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <5307392.exoejlJp9x@wuerfel> <20160701141447.GB8609@e106497-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160701141447.GB8609-2JSQmVVBSi7ZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Liviu Dudau Cc: Thierry Reding , Bjorn Helgaas , Tomasz Nowicki , linux-pci-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Friday, July 1, 2016 3:14:47 PM CEST Liviu Dudau wrote: > > I'm confused. Why are we butchering the old pci_alloc_host_bridge() function > to then go back and add re-add it in a different form? Good point, we could just keep the existing implementation and make it an exported function without the bus argument. > The old pci_alloc_host_bridge() was doing mostly what the above > function does minus the bridge->private line. And the &bridge[1] construct > could very well be pointing to the next struct pci_host_bridge aligned address, > which means parts of priv area are ignored. I don't know what you mean with that. Would you rather write this as? bridge->private = bridge + 1; or leave it out and add a helper function void *pci_host_bridge_private(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge) { return &bridge[1]; } or do you mean we should have extra alignment in there so the private pointer has a minimum alignment higher than the alignment of struct pci_host_bridge? I'm absolutely fine with any of those suggestions, whichever makes the nicest API. Arnd