Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:46:29 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [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.
Jeff
- 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/
| |