On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > I didn't see a proposal yet. In fact, all you said was this might not be > > a good approach. So, if you _do_ have a better approach, please show it > > to us. But to me splitting the IP into its own platform_device has > > Another approach that comes to mind would be (looking from my tree where > this series is applied) > - take what is in xhci_probe() with following arguments:irq, memory and > reset callback > - everyone who wants a XHCI device (pci or platform device) would use > this function and provide the information. > - ->self.controller would be still struct device which is part of > struct pci_dev. However the xhci is not allowed to touch this since > it may be part of platform_device so only the xhci-pci may touch it. > This should not be a problem pm and msi-x would need a callback for > that. That's what I was proposing. But to make this work, I think xhci_probe() would have to be an exported routine that was called directly from the PCI or platform driver, rather than being invoked automatically as a platform driver's probe routine. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
