[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] pci_name()
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 01:53:15AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:36:20PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:35:25AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd kind of like to get rid of pci_dev->slot_name. It's redundant with
> > > pci_dev->dev.bus_id, but that's one hell of a search and replace job.
> > > So let me propose pci_name(pci_dev) as a replacement. That has the
> >
> > That sounds reasonable. But do we really need to do this for 2.6?
> >
> > Just trying to keep things sane...
> I think we really do need to introduce pci_name() for 2.6 (and put it
> in 2.4 too). We don't need to eliminate pci_dev->slot_name for 2.6,
> but drivers that care need to be able to tell the user which card is
> a message is referring to. With overlapping pci bus numbers, the 8
> bytes of bus:device.func is no longer unique, so we need to report the
> domain number too.
> That information's already placed in bus_id, but as I said, I don't
> want to start converting all the drivers. We could just make slot_name
> larger (Anton posted a patch for this) but I don't want to make pci_dev
> even bigger. Having a nice interface like pci_name() makes drivers more
> portable between 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8 (as Jeff pointed out).

Ok, I'll buy that, feel free to send the patch :)


greg k-h
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:0.044 / U:1.528 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site