![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 01:13:39PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:19:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >> > >>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Neil Horman wrote: > >> > >>>Patch to clean up the implementation of the GET_INDEX macro in the i386 > >>>pci > >>>fixup code so that it uses the PCI_DEVFN macro, rather than > >>>re-implements it. > >> > >>This looks wrong: > >> > >> > >>>-#define GET_INDEX(a, b) ((((a) - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA) << 3) + > >>>((b) & 7)) > >>>+#define GET_INDEX(a, b) PCI_DEVFN((a - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA),b) > >> > >>that first argument looks like it has parentheses at the wrong place, it > >>should be > >> > >> (a) - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA > >> > >>rather than > >> > >> (a - PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_MCH_PA) > >> > >>methinks. > >> > >>Other than that... Greg? > > > > > >I'd like to say yes, but I'll get an ack by the pci express people from > >Intel first (PCI_DEVFN masks off bits that might be needed here, don't > >really know...) Also, this is only used for an array index, not a > >pci devfn memory access (look at how it is used in the code...) > > > >I'll put it in my tree for now, and let it get testing, I would not > >recommend it for yours just yet. > > Please let me know, as I suggested this patch to Neil. > > It sure seems like the code wants a real PCI devfn, even though it is > obviously doing a table index. > > Comments? I told Andrew to drop the patch, as the code does not want a real PCI devfn. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-06-30 08:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||