On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:13:05PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto was heard to remark:
[ .. iochk_clear() and iochk_read() ...] > And then, I don't think it need to have "pci" ... limitation of this > API's target. It would not be match if there are a recoverable device > over some PCI to XXX bridge, or if there are some special arch where > don't have PCI but other recoverable bus system, or if future bus system > doesn't called pci... > Currently we would deal only pci, but in future possibly not. OK, in that case, I like the names you picked. > > Yes, they should be no-ops. save/restore interrupts would be a bad idea. > > I expect that we should not do any operation requires enabled interrupt > between iochk_clear and iochk_read. why? Maybe some specific pci chipset might need this, but in general, I don't see why this should be assumed. > If their defaults are no-ops, device > maintainers who develops their driver on not-implemented arch should be > more careful. Why? People who write device drivers already know if/when they need to disable interrupts, and so they already disable if they need it. If a specific arch is using a specific pci chipset that needs interrupts disabled in order to get io error info, then the arch-specific implementation can disable interrupts in iock_clear() ... But I can't imagine why one would want to make this the default behaviour for all arches that *don't* support io error checking ... (on ppc64, iochk_clear() would be a no-op, and iochk_read() would check a flag and maybe call firmware, but would not otherwise have to fiddle with interrupts). --linas p.s. I would like to have iochk_read() take struct pci_dev * as an argument. (I could store a pointer to pci_dev in the "cookie" but that seems odd). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
