Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:34:17 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Patrick Gefre <pfg@sgi.com>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] Altix updates
Message-ID: <20040120233417.A23173@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Patrick Gefre <pfg@sgi.com>, akpm@osdl.org,
	davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200401152154.i0FLscIG023452@fsgi900.americas.sgi.com> <20040116144132.A24555@infradead.org> <400D6A5B.7090009@sgi.com> <20040120180851.A18872@infradead.org> <400D8BBF.7070005@sgi.com> <20040120202132.A20668@infradead.org> <400DAA76.2080103@sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <400DAA76.2080103@sgi.com>; from pfg@sgi.com on Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:23:50PM -0600
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1706
Lines: 53

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:23:50PM -0600, Patrick Gefre wrote:
> I had one for bridge address/TIO, one for bridge address/nonTIO, one for 
> soft address/TIO and one for soft address/nonTIO.
> I thought that was what you were proposing. In any event, here's how the 
> basic code looks (leaving out type defs/error checking/
> etc) - the wrapper is embedded in the macro - note that we would always 
> like to use the soft struct because it doesn't cost us a PIO
> but in the event that the soft struct is not available the bridge 
> address must be used:

(horrible piece of sh^H^H^code snipped)

Eeek!

So taking your pio cycle stuff into account, what about:

void *
__pcireg_xxx_get(bridge_t *bridge, int type)
{
     switch (type ) {
        case BT_TIO:
            return bridge_addr->ti_xxx;

        case BT_PIC:
            return bridge->addr->pic_xxx;

        default:
            /* */
    }
}

and then have wrappers for both the plain bridge_t and the pcibr_soft.
In fact I wonder why you want the one taking bridge_t at all, there is
absolutely no reason why you should be able to get a bridge_t without
getting at the pcibr_soft easily.
> 
> void *
> pcireg_xxx_get(void *ptr)
> {
>     if ( IS_IOADDR(ptr) )
>         return REAL_pcireg_xxx_get(ptr, IS_TIO(ptr) ? BT_TIO : BT_PIC);
>     else
>         return REAL_pcireg_xxx_get(ptr->bs_base, ptr->bs_bridge_type);
>        
> }

No, this is borked again.  The IS_IOADDR tests must go away.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/