Re: [PATCH 2.6] Altix updates

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:23:50PM -0600, Patrick Gefre wrote:
> I had one for bridge address/TIO, one for bridge address/nonTIO, one for 
> soft address/TIO and one for soft address/nonTIO.
> I thought that was what you were proposing. In any event, here's how the 
> basic code looks (leaving out type defs/error checking/
> etc) - the wrapper is embedded in the macro - note that we would always 
> like to use the soft struct because it doesn't cost us a PIO
> but in the event that the soft struct is not available the bridge 
> address must be used:

(horrible piece of sh^H^H^code snipped)

Eeek!

So taking your pio cycle stuff into account, what about:

void *
__pcireg_xxx_get(bridge_t *bridge, int type)
{
     switch (type ) {
        case BT_TIO:
            return bridge_addr->ti_xxx;

        case BT_PIC:
            return bridge->addr->pic_xxx;

        default:
            /* */
    }
}

and then have wrappers for both the plain bridge_t and the pcibr_soft.
In fact I wonder why you want the one taking bridge_t at all, there is
absolutely no reason why you should be able to get a bridge_t without
getting at the pcibr_soft easily.
> 
> void *
> pcireg_xxx_get(void *ptr)
> {
>     if ( IS_IOADDR(ptr) )
>         return REAL_pcireg_xxx_get(ptr, IS_TIO(ptr) ? BT_TIO : BT_PIC);
>     else
>         return REAL_pcireg_xxx_get(ptr->bs_base, ptr->bs_bridge_type);
>        
> }

No, this is borked again.  The IS_IOADDR tests must go away.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/