Re: [PATCH] 2.6 SGI Altix I/O code reorganization

[Colin Ngam <cngam@sgi.com>]

Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:22:01AM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
>  
>
>>pci_root_ops should be static. It's only intended for ACPI.
>>    
>>
>
>What I had intended when I wrote this code was that platforms that didn't
>want to use the generic SAL code (and why not?  It doesn't seem like it
>should be the hardest thing in the world to move your hacks into SAL)
>was that people should override
>
>  struct pci_raw_ops *raw_pci_ops = &pci_sal_ops;
>
>by just assigning raw_pci_ops in their own code.  I haven't looked at
>the SGI code yet, but this is how arch/i386/pci/direct.c (for example)
>works.
>
Hi Matthew,

Yes, after looking at Grant's review/suggestion, we found that we can 
actually just use raw_pci_ops.  This will work well for us.  We have 
incoorporated this change.  No changes in pci/pci.c needed.

Thanks you for your information.

Thanks.

colin

>
>  
>
>>Maybe rename pci_root_ops to "acpi_pci_ops" would make that clearer.
>>    
>>
>
>No.  Don't rename it to anything ACPI specific.  It isn't.  It's just an
>alternative route to access configuration space when you don't even
>have a PCI bus, let alone a device.
>
>  
>