Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269257AbUI3NNo (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:13:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269255AbUI3NNo (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:13:44 -0400 Received: from ipx20189.ipxserver.de ([80.190.249.56]:48768 "EHLO ipx20189.ipxserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269254AbUI3NNk (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:13:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:03:56 +0300 (EAT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Kenji Kaneshige Cc: Linux Kernel , long , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartmann , Len Brown , tony.luck@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocation support [2/3] In-Reply-To: <415B8A16.9070101@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <4157A9D7.4090605@jp.fujitsu.com> <415A28B9.6080504@jp.fujitsu.com> <415B8A16.9070101@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1606 Lines: 35 On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > > > Ok i think i may have not conveyed my meaning properly, my mistake. What i > > think would be better is if the architectures which have no-op > > acpi_unregister_gsi to declare them as static inline in header files. For > > architectures (such as ia64) which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, we > > can declare them in a .c file with the proper exports etc. > > > > Now I (maybe) properly understand what you mean :-). But I still have one > concern about your idea. > > For architectures which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, we need to > declare "extern void acpi_unregister_gsi(int gsi);" in include/linux/acpi.h > that is common to all architectures. I think include/linux/acpi.h is the > best place to declare it because acpi_register_gsi(), opposite portion of > acpi_unregister_gsi(), is declared in it. On the other hand, for archtectures > that have no-op acpi_unregister_gsi(), acpi_unregister_gsi() is defined as > static inline function in arch specific header files. This looks not natural > to me. Can't you declare "extern void acpi_unregister_gsi(int gsi)" in include/asm/acpi.h? That way it stays arch specific and you don't have the conflicting declarations. You can also move acpi_unregister_gsi into arch specific headers too. Thanks, Zwane - 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/