On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:19:20PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 18.02.21 16:01:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The problem this series solves is an imbalanced API.
>
> This (added) API is bloated and incomplete. It adds functions without
> benefit, the only is to have a single pcim alloc funct
On 18.02.21 16:01:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The problem this series solves is an imbalanced API.
This (added) API is bloated and incomplete. It adds functions without
benefit, the only is to have a single pcim alloc function in addition
to the pairing of alloc/free functions. I agree, it is har
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:36:28AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 17.02.21 00:02:45, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> > pci_alloc_irq_vectors(), In some i2c drivers, If pcim_enable_device()
> > has been called before, then pci_alloc_irq_vec
On 17.02.21 00:02:45, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
> pci_alloc_irq_vectors(), In some i2c drivers, If pcim_enable_device()
> has been called before, then pci_alloc_irq_vectors() is actually a
> device-managed function. It is used as a device-m
Introduce pcim_alloc_irq_vectors(), a device-managed version of
pci_alloc_irq_vectors(), In some i2c drivers, If pcim_enable_device()
has been called before, then pci_alloc_irq_vectors() is actually a
device-managed function. It is used as a device-managed function, So
replace it with pcim_alloc_ir
5 matches
Mail list logo