On 11/22/2017 9:49 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>> If you have out-of-tree drivers, then yes, they can make a wrapper for >>> this function like this if they really feel the need, or they can get >>> their code merged:) >> Sorry, I guess I should have been clearer. My suggestion was to fix some of >> the drivers where the domain can be determined, and for the rest, just mark >> the old function as deprecated. > So the build now gets warnings? That's annoying, and then someone else > will have to make the exact same patches that were created here? > >> If that's still a terrible idea, well, okay. I'm just unsure that simply >> hard-coding a 0 for the domain for some drivers is really a solution. Don't >> we really want all drivers to properly support all domains? > I bet all of those drivers don't care because they are running only in > systems with 1 domain, otherwise they would be broken today, right? But > really, it shouldn't be that hard to get to the "real" PCI device to > provide the correct pointer to the domain for most of these, as I > pointed out in one patch review already. I agree. Point is 95% drivers do support multiple segments. These are the exceptions. We should try to fix them as much as we can. (I'll take a look at Greg's suggestion) In the end, this API is a backdoor and workarounds the proper APIs and usual practices like carrying struct pci_dev pointer. I'm trying to shoot that API in the foot so that a developer thinks twice before putting number 0 there. -- 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.
