From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754175AbYI2S1G (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:27:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751974AbYI2S0x (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:26:53 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-03.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.13]:40797 "HELO outbound-mail-03.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751901AbYI2S0u (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:26:50 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User; b=o2F8LDkWjyg0whi2+bPYcPSMZdTAhvzCGglTQ0JRvrWomll0+wzJzx3MrqVXO4S6i02fwIuE6066ZjDAyJH7i75oUARiL55l9jdfd2niEbZ217iyfuYtKwOzpqeSx9GM; From: Jesse Barnes To: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] pci: introduce an pci_ioremap(pdev, barnr) function Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:26:41 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Alan Cox , Rolf Eike Beer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org References: <20080928163611.3df8a9e0@infradead.org> <20080929184519.11d08dc4@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20080929111558.04f27eea@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20080929111558.04f27eea@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200809291126.42753.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, September 29, 2008 11:15 am Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:45:19 +0100 > > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > This is the same like pci_iomap(pdev, number, 0), no? > > > > > > Yeah... Looks like that function isn't that widely used though. Is > > > the maxlen param really needed? Looks like the drivers that use it > > > often pass 0 or the > > > > In some cases yes you do need the length. > > so we should have a 2nd api for those "some cases", that's ok. Right, I'm definitely not suggesting that we don't provide a way to provide length, but if 90+% of callers don't need it, we should probably have a simpler API that does the bare minimum. Jesse