Thanks for your constructive review.
One logistical issue here is that the first patch touches several
architectures at once, which puts Jesse in a bit of a pinch. If he
applies it, there's always the possibility that an arch patch will
conflict with it, which makes merging harder.
In case the conflicts happen, the effort to resolve them should be
trivial (a matter of an extra NULL argument), I suppose. Also, the odds
of other incoming arch patches making a reference to pci_create_bus()
should not be great.
It might be easier if, instead of changing the pci_create_bus()
interface, you added a new one (it could call pci_create_bus() then
replace the resources, so the implementation could still be mostly
shared.) We already have a plethora of "create bus" methods
(pci_create_bus(), pci_scan_bus_parented(), pci_scan_bus()), but if
you added a pci_create_root_bus() or something similar, maybe we could
try to converge on it and obsolete the others.
Then the first patch would touch only the PCI core, and the second
would touch only MIPS, which would make merging more straightforward.
Hmm.. Adding a wrapper of pci_create_bus() does leave other
architectures alone for this merging. But before all of them converge on
it (a long way to go), the wrapper is adding naming confusion to the
PCI core. Personally I think the current low-level transparent change to
pci_create_bus() is appropriate enough. Does anybody have comments?