From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:39:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:39:30 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:59010 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:39:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010822.183912.61335222.davem@redhat.com> To: gibbs@scsiguy.com Cc: groudier@free.fr, axboe@suse.de, skraw@ithnet.com, phillips@bonn-fries.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <200108230132.f7N1WkY22194@aslan.scsiguy.com> In-Reply-To: <20010822.180858.89278064.davem@redhat.com> <200108230132.f7N1WkY22194@aslan.scsiguy.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:32:46 -0600 Perhaps its different for SBUS, but its not different for ISA or EISA. Right, you pass in a NULL pci_dev pointer. What is the problem with that? Do you believe that it is architecturally correct to have a single api or multiple apis? I think just plain different entry points are the way to do things, because function pointers and/or extra conditional execution rots when it's really not needed. The "pci" api already allows you to express this. There will be a "struct device" in 2.5.x and lots of unification. Frankly, I'd rather not touch the SBUS drivers though. All the devices are cast in stone, I'm the only person who maintains or even works on any of the drivers, and the less I have to change at this point the better. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com