On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:43:14AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > FWIW, I think pcim_intx() and pci_intx() align better to our naming > convention for devres interfaces. Would it be sufficient if pci_intx() > triggered a WARN_ON if called for a pci_is_managed() device? Thanks, > To be honest, I also don't mind if you also just merge the patchset as-is. I was mostly just throwing out ideas. regards, dan carpenter
- References:
- [RFC PATCH 00/13] Remove implicit devres from pci_intx()
- From: Philipp Stanner
- [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- From: Philipp Stanner
- Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- From: Dan Carpenter
- Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- From: Philipp Stanner
- Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- From: Alex Williamson
- [RFC PATCH 00/13] Remove implicit devres from pci_intx()
- Prev by Date: [PATCH][next] ASoC: max98388: Fix missing increment of variable slot_found
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH V2][next] ASoC: rt722-sdca: Remove logically deadcode in rt722-sdca.c
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/13] Remove devres from pci_intx()
- Index(es):