[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080215152008.GA1975@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:20:08 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>
Cc: jdmason@...zu.us, bzolnier@...il.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
discuss@...-64.org
Subject: Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> In conclusion, our usage doesn't seem lika a good fit for the probe
> approach, although it could probably converted provided we got the
> ordering right with regards to regular PCI device
> initialization. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
After reading this, and looking at the code again, I agree. Thanks for
the great explaination, I'll leave the code alone now :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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