Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:13:13 -0700 | From | Grant Grundler <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Change pci_raw_ops to pci_raw_read/write |
| |
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:22AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> > Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:45:28 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] Change pci_raw_ops to pci_raw_read/write ... > -static int > -pci_read (struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where, int size, u32 *value) > +static int pci_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where, > + int size, u32 *value) > { > - return raw_pci_ops->read(pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number, > + return raw_pci_read(pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number, > devfn, where, size, value);
Willy, Just wondering...why don't we just pass "struct bus*" through to the raw_pci* ops? My thinking is if a PCI bus controller or bridge is discovered, then we should always create a matching "struct bus *".
Your patch looks fine to me but if you (and others) agree with the above, I can make patch to change the internal interface. The pci_*_config API needs to remain the same.
... > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/quirks.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/quirks.c > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static void __devinit quirk_intel_irqbalance(struct pci_dev *dev) > pci_write_config_byte(dev, 0xf4, config|0x2); > > /* read xTPR register */ > - raw_pci_ops->read(0, 0, 0x40, 0x4c, 2, &word); > + raw_pci_read(0, 0, 0x40, 0x4c, 2, &word);
Why are we using raw_pci_read here instead of pci_read_config_dword()? If the pci_write_config_byte() above works, then I expect the read to work too.
To be clear, this is not a problem with this patch...rather a seperate problem with the original code.
hth, grant
| |