Hi Tejun, On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 08:52 -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Philipp. > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 10:02:29PM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: > ... > > That struct keeps track of the requested BARs. That's why there can > > only be one mapping per BAR, because that table is statically > > allocated > > and is indexed with the bar-number. > > pcim_iomap_table() now only ever returns the table with the > > pointers to > > the BARs. Adding tables to that struct that keep track of which > > mappings exist in which bars would be a bit tricky and require > > probably > > an API change for everyone who currently uses pcim_iomap_table(), > > and > > that's more than 100 C-files. > > > > So, it seems that a concern back in 2007 was to keep things simple > > and > > skip the more complex data structures necessary for keeping track > > of > > the various mappings within a bar. > > It was so long ago that I don't remember much but I do remember > taking a > shortcut there for convenience / simplicity. I'm sure it's already > clear but > there's no deeper reason, so if you wanna put in the work to make it > consistent, that'd be great. > Alright, it's good to know that there seems to be no functional or semantic reason or something behind it. I'll think it through. Maybe we can design something clever P. > Thanks. >
