On 1/29/2018 4:43 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: >> 12/19/2017 12:37 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: >>> pci_get_bus_and_slot() is restrictive such that it assumes domain=0 as >>> where a PCI device is present. This restricts the device drivers to be >>> reused for other domain numbers. > So not a major problem, but it would be pretty much impossible for either > of these agp drivers to be used in any other domain ever. > > What does this buy us, maybe just rename pci_get_bus_and_slot to > pci_get_domain0_bus_and_slot as a helper, or just pass the pdev in > and have it do the right thing always. There is nothing wrong with doing all three. Since nobody replied until patch v4, I did the heavy-lifting and converted code to use pci_domain_nr() as much as I can rather than hard-coding a 0 while calling pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(). >From PCI coding perspective, pci_domain_nr() call is the right thing. It is guaranteed to work no matter what your domain number is. People look at other code for examples on how to write a PCI driver in general. You want to minimize the exceptions as much as possible. Some discussion here about the benefits: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/19/349 -- Sinan Kaya Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
