Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:53:15 +0100 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] pci_name() |
| |
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:36:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:35:25AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > I'd kind of like to get rid of pci_dev->slot_name. It's redundant with > > pci_dev->dev.bus_id, but that's one hell of a search and replace job. > > So let me propose pci_name(pci_dev) as a replacement. That has the > > That sounds reasonable. But do we really need to do this for 2.6? > > Just trying to keep things sane...
I think we really do need to introduce pci_name() for 2.6 (and put it in 2.4 too). We don't need to eliminate pci_dev->slot_name for 2.6, but drivers that care need to be able to tell the user which card is a message is referring to. With overlapping pci bus numbers, the 8 bytes of bus:device.func is no longer unique, so we need to report the domain number too.
That information's already placed in bus_id, but as I said, I don't want to start converting all the drivers. We could just make slot_name larger (Anton posted a patch for this) but I don't want to make pci_dev even bigger. Having a nice interface like pci_name() makes drivers more portable between 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8 (as Jeff pointed out).
-- "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk - 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/
| |