Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:40:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:40:09 -0500 Received: from d-dialin-345.addcom.de ([62.96.160.105]:49134 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:39:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:40:05 +0100 (CET) From: Kai Germaschewski X-X-Sender: To: cc: Alan Cox Subject: PCI like interface for ISAPnP Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! I wrote a driver for some ISDN cards. For the PCI cards, init is pretty easy: static struct pci_driver fcpci_driver = { name: "fcpci", probe: fcpci_probe, remove: fcpcipnp_remove, id_table: fcpci_ids, }; [...] retval = pci_register_driver(&fcpci_driver); if (retval < 0) goto out; As the driver also works with an ISAPnP card, I wanted to be able to handle this part in the same way: static struct isapnp_driver fcpnp_driver = { name: "fcpnp", probe: fcpnp_probe, remove: fcpcipnp_remove, id_table: fcpnp_ids, }; [...] retval = isapnp_register_driver(&fcpnp_driver); if (retval < 0) goto out_unregister_pci; For the time being, I implemented isapnp_{,un}register_driver privately in my driver, but I think this is functionality that other people may want to use as well. Of course, within the new device framework in 2.5 will change again, so this will most likely become obsolete then. So the question is: Should I provide a generic isapnp_{,un}register_driver framework (it's pretty simple anyway), or keep things private to my driver? --Kai - 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/