[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061015135251.GB22289@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:52:51 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, val_henson@...ux.intel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [PATCH 1/2] [PCI] Check that MWI bit really did get set
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:08:09AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > But the only effect of returning EINVAL is a printk (for this particular
> > driver):
> >
> > /* PCI Memory-Write-Invalidate cycle support is optional (uncommon) */
> > retval = pci_set_mwi(pdev);
> > if (!retval)
> > ehci_dbg(ehci, "MWI active\n");
>
> Erm, I've lost context here but it's completely legit for hardware
> to NOT support MWI, so it is in no way an error if it's not set.
> (Memory-Write-Invalidate is just a more efficient way to write data
> that may be cached; if the device can't issue those cycles, there's
> no loss of correctness.)
>
> Since it's not an error, there should be no such printk ... which
> is exactly how it's coded above.
>
> Who is issuing the printk on a non-error code path??
Er, that would be the EHCI driver, which you wrote ...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists