[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] And yet more PCI fixes for 2.5.70
    On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 06:19:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
    > On Mer, 2003-06-11 at 17:38, Greg KH wrote:
    > > So that leaves only this file. Jeff Garzik and I talked about removing
    > > pci_present() as it's not needed, and I think for this one case we can
    > > live without it. Do you want me to make the pci_present() macro earlier
    > > in this file, so it's readable again? I don't want to put it back into
    > > pci.h.
    > I still think it belongs in pci.h. Its an API and the API makes sense. The

    Its an API that doesn't make sense.

    99% of the uses can simply be eliminated (in 2.4, too).
    They are entirely redundant.

    The remaining two cases are really arch-specific checks that were
    being done wrong anyway. Note the history: the definition morphed
    in 2.4 from being "PCI BIOS seems to be present, so we'll assume a
    PCI bus is present" to "PCI devices are present." Neither definition
    is correct for the question the remaining two cases want answered:
    "Is a PCI bus present?" Further, the IDE code calculating system
    bus speed it should really be calling a PCI callback, not asking "Do
    I have a PCI bus?" and making a guess... a guess which seems wrong
    in several cases, including my Dual Athlon box w/ 100% 66 Mhz PCI bus.

    So, I conclude that pci_present() is wrong for all cases except one --
    and that case is sparc64-specific and can be handled with arch-specific
    code, I bet.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [W:0.037 / U:1.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site