Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753849AbWKGBZj (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:25:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753865AbWKGBZj (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:25:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:186 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753849AbWKGBZh (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:25:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:25:19 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: Alan Cox Cc: Sergio Monteiro Basto , akpm@osdl.org, Wilco Beekhuizen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VIA IRQ quirk missing PCI ids since 2.6.16.17 Message-ID: <20061107012519.GC25719@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Alan Cox , Sergio Monteiro Basto , akpm@osdl.org, Wilco Beekhuizen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <6c4c86470611060338j7f216e26od93e35b4b061890e@mail.gmail.com> <1162817254.5460.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1162847625.10086.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1162847625.10086.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1327 Lines: 42 On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:13:45PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > +static const struct pci_device_id via_vlink_fixup_tbl[] = { > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233_0), 17}, > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233A), 17 }, > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8233C_0), 17 }, > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8235), 16 }, > + /* May not be needed for the 8237 */ > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8237), 15 }, > + { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_VIA_8237A), 15 }, > { 0, }, This got me wondering what PCI_VDEVICE was, so I went looking. It's a libata'ism it seems with the comment.. /* move to PCI layer? */ Which sounds like a good idea to me. But until this is moved, does quirks.c actually compile with this patch? I don't see an include of linux/libata.h there. When it gets moved to the PCI layer, I wonder if it'd be worth doing the same thing to the second argument, so that we'd be able to do.. { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, VIA_8233_0), 17}, Or maybe even.. { PCI_VDEVICE(VIA, 8233_0), 17}, ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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/