From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F007DDF34 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:44:34 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use of_get_pci_dev_node() in axon_msi.c From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: michael@ellerman.id.au In-Reply-To: <1193125016.20274.4.camel@concordia> References: <8f76815cbbaf5fbab82c843d87bc0dafab038c80.1192605144.git.michael@ellerman.id.au> <20071017230449.GZ4891@austin.ibm.com> <1192670843.6681.10.camel@concordia> <20071018190939.GE29903@austin.ibm.com> <1193125016.20274.4.camel@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:40:26 +1000 Message-Id: <1193125226.6745.185.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > So Ben suggested what we really want is two routines, > of_get_pci_dev_node() and of_peek_pci_dev_node() - the former returning > a refcounted copy and the latter allowing you to "peek" at the > device_node as long as you own the pci_dev. > > I'm not sure it's worth the churn really, so we should probably just > document that pci_device_to_OF_node() is contrary, and any users that > need a reference can take one explicitly. Yeah, I pretty much made the same decision a couple of years ago which is why it's still the way it is now :-) Cheers, Ben.