Re: PCI question

From: Patrick Gefre <pfg_at_sgi.com>
Date: 2004-02-05 06:10:46
Grant Grundler wrote:

>On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:04:42AM -0600, Patrick Gefre wrote:
>  
>
>>I think the 2.4 definition will be fine - at least for now. Was there a 
>>reason it was changed in 2.6 ?
>>    
>>
>
>Because no one was using it?
>
>Pat,
>two (three?) people have asked you to state what you want to add.
>Can you state the basic problem additional data fields would solve?
>
>It might be easier to just add those fields directly to pci_controller
>instead of messing with platform_data.
>
>grant
>  
>
We keep track of several things that are specific to our system:

struct sn_device_sysdata {
        vertex_hdl_t            vhdl;
        pciio_provider_t        *pci_provider;
        pciio_intr_t            intr_handle;
        struct sn_flush_device_list *dma_flush_list;
        pciio_piomap_t          pio_map[PCI_ROM_RESOURCE];
};

The platform_data element is what we use in 2.4 and seems like the way 
to go for 2.6.

-- Pat

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Feb 4 14:13:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:22 EST