On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:51:22AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text
> From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:45:28 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] Change pci_raw_ops to pci_raw_read/write
...
quoted text
> -static int
> -pci_read (struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where, int size, u32 *value)
> +static int pci_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where,
> +							int size, u32 *value)
>  {
> -	return raw_pci_ops->read(pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number,
> +	return raw_pci_read(pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number,
>  				 devfn, where, size, value);

Willy,
Just wondering...why don't we just pass "struct bus*" through to the
raw_pci* ops?
My thinking is if a PCI bus controller or bridge is discovered, then we should
always create a matching "struct bus *".

Your patch looks fine to me but if you (and others) agree with the above,
I can make patch to change the internal interface. The pci_*_config API
needs to remain the same.

...
quoted text
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/quirks.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/quirks.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static void __devinit quirk_intel_irqbalance(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  	pci_write_config_byte(dev, 0xf4, config|0x2);
>  
>  	/* read xTPR register */
> -	raw_pci_ops->read(0, 0, 0x40, 0x4c, 2, &word);
> +	raw_pci_read(0, 0, 0x40, 0x4c, 2, &word);

Why are we using raw_pci_read here instead of pci_read_config_dword()?
If the pci_write_config_byte() above works, then I expect the read
to work too.

To be clear, this is not a problem with this patch...rather a seperate
problem with the original code.

hth,
grant
--
unsubscribe notice
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/