[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h
    On Tuesday 05 August 2003 11:45, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
    >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:22:35 -0400 Gene Heskett
    <> wrote:
    >| On Tuesday 05 August 2003 10:57, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
    >| >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:41:08 -0400 Gene Heskett
    >| <> wrote:
    >| >| ----
    >| >| First, the define itself is missing in the 2.6 version.
    >| >|
    >| >| Many drivers seem to use this call, and in that which I'm
    >| >| trying to build, the nforce and advansys modules use it. And
    >| >| while the modules seem to build, they do not run properly.
    >| >|
    >| >| I cannot run 2.6.x for extended tests because of the advansys
    >| >| breakage this causes. I also haven't even tried to run X
    >| >| because of the nforce error reported when its built, the same
    >| >| error as attacks the advansys code.
    >| >|
    >| >| Can I ask why this change was made, and is there a suitable
    >| >| replacement call available that these drivers could use instead
    >| >| of check_region(), as shown here in a snip from advansys.c?
    >| >| ----
    >| >| if (check_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
    >| >| ...
    >| >| if (check_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
    >| >| ...
    >| >|
    >| >| Hopeing for some hints here.
    >| >
    >| >check_region() was racy. Use request_region() instead.
    >| >
    >| > if (!request_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP, "advansys")) {
    >| > ...
    >| >
    >| > if (!request_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR, "advansys")) {
    >| > ...
    >| >
    >| >Of course, if successful, this assigns the region to the driver,
    >| >while check_region() didn't do this, so release_region() should
    >| > be used as needed to return the resources.
    >| Oops... I have a test compile going that changed those to
    >| check_mem_region. And while I didn't change the i2c stuff, which
    >| still reports the error, advansys.o built w/o error this time.
    >| Ok, so I can change that to !request_region, but I have NDI when
    >| to go about releasing it, if ever, for a kernel driver thats
    >| either there, and the hardware is used, or not because the
    >| hardware isn't present.
    >release_region() is already done for the normal case.
    >It needs to be added for the error cases in advansys_detect()
    >[wow, what a long function].
    >For your kernel(s) and known hardware, it may not be much of an
    >issue. However, the in-kernel driver needs to be repaired, but
    >it seems that not many people have the hardware...
    >| It seems to me that if its allocated to this driver, and capable
    >| of being re-used at anytime, then the allocation should, once
    >| made, stand.
    >Yes, request_region() should keep the region assigned until the
    > driver is exiting (unloading). release_region() is already done in
    > advansys_release().
    >| Or is my view of the world skewed and it should be done at
    >| the bottom of whatever conditional is involved? Inquiring minds
    >| want to know. I guess it all depends on what happens if the call
    >| is repeated. Will it assign a new buffer each time?, thereby
    >| causeing a memory leak, or will it find its been done once and
    >| return success anyway?
    >advansys_detect() should call release_region() if it encounters
    > errors [after it has called request_region() and returns an error].
    >request_region() doesn't assign buffers, it allocates IO resources,
    >as seen in /proc/ioports or /proc/iomem. I don't know what happens
    >on repeated calls by the same driver|module, but in general a second
    >call will fail if the region is already allocated.

    All that code is loosely bundled under the heading of advansys_init,
    and from the useage of a header constant in the code to control the
    "for (i = CONSTANT" loop above it, would appear to be looped 11
    times. Thats not the correct syntax of course, but you get the idea
    I hope.

    I've built it that way now, without any errors, so its time to go fire
    up a weed eater acording to the missus, and I'll do a test reboot
    later tonight just for any grins it might generate. I also took all
    the i2c stuff out, and might try building that once I'm rebooted, but
    I think a name change was made from "modversions" in the
    lib/modules/version tree, so that will probably fail until I fix the
    &^%$@() makefile.

    I'll let you know how it goes later. Many thanks for the help, I
    figured I was dead and would have to go buy a (spit) adaptec card.

    Cheers, Gene
    AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
    Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
    99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly attornies please note, additions to this message
    by Gene Heskett are:
    Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

    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 13:47    [W:0.037 / U:3.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site