[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061107012519.GC25719@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:25:19 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Wilco Beekhuizen <wilcobeekhuizen@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VIA IRQ quirk missing PCI ids since 2.6.16.17
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:13:45PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> +static const struct pci_device_id via_vlink_fixup_tbl[] = {
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233_0), 17},
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233A), 17 },
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233C_0), 17 },
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8235), 16 },
> + /* May not be needed for the 8237 */
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8237), 15 },
> + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8237A), 15 },
> { 0, },
This got me wondering what PCI_VDEVICE was, so I went looking.
It's a libata'ism it seems with the comment..
/* move to PCI layer? */
Which sounds like a good idea to me. But until this is moved,
does quirks.c actually compile with this patch? I don't see
an include of linux/libata.h there.
When it gets moved to the PCI layer, I wonder if it'd be worth
doing the same thing to the second argument, so that we'd be
able to do..
{ PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, VIA_8233_0), 17},
Or maybe even..
{ PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, 8233_0), 17},
?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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