[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101027151327.GR10869@flamenco.cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:13:27 -0400
From: "Emilio G. Cota" <cota@...ap.org>
To: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Juan David Gonzalez Cobas <david.cobas@...il.com>,
Bill Pemberton <wfp5p@...ginia.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/30] staging/vme: allow non-dynamic allocation of bus
numbers
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:41:18 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On 26/10/10 02:10, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > From: Emilio G. Cota <cota@...ap.org>
> >
> > In a configuration with several bridges, each bridge is
> > assigned a certain bus number depending on the order in which
> > vme_register_bridge is called. This can complicate multi-bridge
> > installations because the eventual bus numbers will depend
> > on the order the bridges were loaded.
> >
> > The appended allows bridges to register with a bus number of
> > their choice, while keeping the previous 'first come, first
> > served' behaviour as the default.
> >
>
> I can't see where this is being used.
Each driver's .probe is fed with bus_number and slot_number.
Normally the driver will check that pair against what it received
through modparams and act accordingly.
For this to be reliable bus numbering should be consistent on
a given system, i.e. it should be possible to always allocate
the same bus number to a given bus. Otherwise, depending on
which bridge is installed first, we'd get different bus numbers
assigned.
Does that make it clearer now?
> I assume this is a part of future changes you wish to make?
AFAICT it affects the current model.
Cheers
Emilio
--
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