lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Defining new section for bus driver init

> > What do people think about the concept?
>
> Well, it chops out a load of ugly ifdefs, and makes adding support
> for a new bus less intrusive than it currently is. I quite like it.

Cool. I'll change the other buses in init/main.c and post it.

> > I will warn that the name is kinda clumsy, but it's the best that I could
> > come up with (I wasted my creativity for the day on thinking about
> > Penelope). I used "subsystem" because I have alterior motives.
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head with the subject line.
> struct BusDriver also conjures up amusing[*] imagery.

Yes, next I'll be adding a common set of routines for BusDrivers,
including drive(), stop(), give_people_dirty_looks(), and swerve()...

> One thing I'm wondering about though. Is it possible for a new
> bus to be added after boot ? Docking stations etc show up as
> children on the root PCI bus, so that shouldn't be an issue.

A new bus? Sure, the bus driver just has to probe behind it.

USB can do it. The PCI probe routines are all declared __devinit, so if
you have hotplug support, you should be able to do it in theory. Greg?

> Ah! hotplug PCI USB controller ?

Cardbus, Hotplug PCI, docking stations..

-pat

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.027 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site