linux-kernel - Re: pci probe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4649B270.8050002@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2007 17:15:28 +0400
From:	Manu Abraham <abraham.manu@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: pci probe

Manu Abraham wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I do have a device that's a multifunction device. Eventhough a MFD, it
> just has one Interrupt which is shared by by a Configuration space for
> each function. ie, INTA is shared between them functions.
> 
> In such a case, i am wondering, (since pci_probe returns a pointer to
> one PCI function alone and i need to use both the functions in one
> module alone rather than using a module for each function and that the
> functions are quite similar for them to be used in different modules,
> such that a separate probe/ISR etc is used) whether using pci_get_device
> would be a better alternative to do manual searching for the functions
> in such a case.
> 

Just figured out that pci_get_subsys() does work in a better. Looking at
kernel sources all i find is just one single user of pci_get_subsys()

building the code around pci_get_subsys(), does this have any negative
impact ?

Thanks,
Manu
-
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/