Re: argument of pci_msi[x]_count()

[Masanobu SAITOH <msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost>]

Hi, Christos.

On 2015/08/07 18:53, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <55C349BF.2000403%execsw.org@localhost>,
> Masanobu SAITOH  <msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost> 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?


> christos
> 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------
                SAITOH Masanobu (msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost
                                 msaitoh%netbsd.org@localhost)