From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NezEG-00072Z-B9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:10:48 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38227 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NezEF-00072E-Qq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:10:47 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NezEE-00047f-IE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:10:47 -0500
Received: from mail-iw0-f185.google.com ([209.85.223.185]:57478)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1NezEE-00047b-B8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:10:46 -0500
Received: by iwn15 with SMTP id 15so5993560iwn.19
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B71EB73.608@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:10:43 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/15] ac97: convert to new PCI API
References: <1265752899-26980-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<1265752899-26980-8-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1002100143480.14423@linmac>
	<4B71E72C.8050702@codemonkey.ws>
	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1002100205500.24185@linmac>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1002100205500.24185@linmac>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: Michael Tsirkin <mstirkin@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex Graf <agraf@suse.de>

On 02/09/2010 05:06 PM, malc wrote:
>
>> We already have this problem with the current interface.
>>      
> Uh, i've meant the registration of one function to rule them all, instead
> of how it's done currently - separate accessors for b/w/l/whatever.
>    

How does that make any difference?  Both the ioport and memory 
registrations interface take the same function pointer regardless of 
access size.

If you wanted to introduce a quad-word specific accessor, you would need 
to introduce a different registration mechanism or you would have to 
change the signature for all of the functions.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori