Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocation support [2/3]

From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji_at_jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: 2004-09-30 14:22:46
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.

How do you think?

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige

-
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 Thu Sep 30 00:21:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:31 EST