Re: removal of EXPORT_SYMBOL(insert_resource)?

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

Kumar,

any news regarding a submission of your code?

cu
Adrian


On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 04:59:35PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:31:08PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I have a situation that I believe warrants leaving insert_resource as an 
> > exported API.
> > 
> > I've got a bus implementation that it done as a module.  While I'm more 
> > than happy to provide this bus implementation to be included in the 
> > mainline, I dont think it makes much sense to do so.  The code is only 
> > useful to an extremely small handful of people.  If we want to clutter the 
> > kernel with it I'm happy to provide a patch for it.
> 
> Please do, keeping code outside the kernel makes it _very_ hard on you.
> It makes it easier if everything is in-the-tree, as you know.
> 
> Hell, we have two whole x86 subarchs with only 4 machines each in
> existance, a simple bus is nothing :)
> 
> > The situation I have is a FPGA connect over PCI.  The FPGA implements a 
> > number of different "functions" but uses PCI more like an SoC bus than a 
> > true PCI device.  Anyways, in some discussions with gregkh, it was 
> > suggested the best thing was to create a new bus type that the "fpga" 
> > drivers would bind to.
> > 
> > I use insert_resource to handle registering the MMIO regions for each 
> > device (similar to how platform devices are registered).
> 
> All the better reason to get it into the tree...
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h