On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 09:12:25PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 12 January 2013, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > I already hinted at that in one of the other subthreads. Having such a > > > multiplex would also allow the driver to be built as a module. I had > > > already thought about this when I was working on an earlier version of > > > these patches. Basically these would be two ops attached to the host > > > bridge, and the generic arch_setup_msi_irq() could then look that up > > > given the struct pci_dev that is passed to it and call this new per- > > > host bridge .setup_msi_irq(). > > > > struct pci_ops looks like a good place to put these. They'll be > > available from each struct pci_bus, so should be easy to call from > > arch_setup_msi_irq(). > > > > Any objections? > > > > struct pci_ops has a long history of being specifically about > config space read/write operations, so on the one hand it does > not feel like the right place to put interrupt specific operations, > but on the other hand, the name sounds appropriate and I cannot > think of any other place to put this, so it's fine with me. > > The only alternative I can think of is to introduce a new > structure next to it in struct pci_bus, but that feels a bit > pointless. Maybe Bjorn has a preference one way or the other. The name pci_ops is certainly generic enough. Also the comment above the structure declaration says "Low-level architecture-dependent routines", which applies to the MSI functions as well. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpUQiFyEjEOu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
