[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CF9C39F99A89134C9CF9C4CCB68B8DDF25C1AF90E0@orsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:32:32 -0800
From: "Heasley, Seth" <seth.heasley@...el.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC: "jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org" <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2.6.37] irq: irq and pci_ids patch for Intel DH89xxCC
DeviceIDs
>> Some products are defining a range of DeviceIDs rather than one or two
>specific IDs, so these blocks are for catching any DeviceID in the
>range. I'm certainly open to suggestion for a better way to handle
>these, and I agree that the current way is awkward.
>
>I understand the need to have separate blocks for separate IDs and for
>ID ranges. But all the ranges could be covered by the same block:
>
> if ((device >= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_5_3400_SERIES_LPC_MIN &&
> device <= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_5_3400_SERIES_LPC_MAX)
> || (device >= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_LPC_MIN &&
> device <= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_LPC_MAX)) {
> r->name = "PIIX/ICH";
> r->get = pirq_piix_get;
> r->set = pirq_piix_set;
> return 1;
> }
Not sure why I didn't do it this way. Thanks for the help!
-Seth
--
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