In article <[email protected]>, Masanobu SAITOH <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, Christos. > >On 2015/08/07 18:53, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> In article <[email protected]>, >> Masanobu SAITOH <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi, all. >>> >>> Currently, pci_msi_count() and pci_msix_count() take one >>> pci_attach_args argument. >>> These functions may be used in other than attach function. So, it might be >>> better to use pci_chipset_tag_t and pcitag_t. >>> >>> Is the following diff better than current specification? >> >> Ok, but this makes them different than their alloc counterparts. Should >> we change those too? > >Almost all pci related functions don't take pci_attach_args as >an argument. Some functions are required to take it because >some elements(e.g. pa_iot and pa_memt) in the structure are required. > > Before introducing MSI/MSI-X API, the following functions take >pci_attach_args as an argument. > >pci_find_device() >pci_mapreg_map() >pci_mapreg_submap() >pci_intr_map() >pci_aprint_devinfo() >pci_attach_hook() > >Some above functions refers pa_iot and pa_memt in them. > >And then, the following functions which take pci_attach_args >as an argument are added: > >pci_intx_alloc() >pci_intr_alloc() >pci_msi_count() >pci_msi_alloc() >pci_msi_alloc_exact() >pci_msix_count() >pci_msix_alloc() >pci_msix_alloc_exact() >pci_msix_alloc_map() > > pci_intr_map() takes pci_attach_args, so it's consistent. >In reality, it's not required for x86 to take pci_attach_args. >The MSI/MSI-X related "alloc" function might not required >to take pci_attach_args, but I think it's ok to keep current >API for the consistency and possibility of using pci_attach_args >on other archs. > > So, is it ok to change pci_msi[x]_count() only? >
I don't have a problem with it, I was just questioning the rationale about passing pci_attach_args to functions... christos
