Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:49:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:49:19 -0500 Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com ([63.229.232.106]:57869 "EHLO aslan.scsiguy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:48:56 -0500 Message-Id: <200201300048.g0U0mrI59231@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: andersen@codepoet.org cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: Adaptec 1480b SlimSCSI vs hotplug In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:26:29 MST." <20020129232629.GB937@codepoet.org> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 17:48:53 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Does this look agreeable? The only thing you've really changed is the class_mask. I don't understand why testing against *more bits* of the class allows your card to be detected. Can you explain why the old code fail? >--- linux-2.4.18-pre7.orig/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_linux_pci.c Tue Jan > 29 05:20:08 2002 >+++ linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aic7xxx_linux_pci.c Tue Jan 29 05:20:08 200 >2 >@@ -62,12 +62,12 @@ > /* We do our own ID filtering. So, grab all SCSI storage class devices. */ > static struct pci_device_id ahc_linux_pci_id_table[] = { > { >- 0x9004, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, >- PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI << 8, 0xFFFF00, 0 >+ PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADAPTEC, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, >+ ((PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI << 8) | 0x00), ~0, 0 > }, > { >- 0x9005, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, >- PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI << 8, 0xFFFF00, 0 >+ PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADAPTEC2, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, >+ ((PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI << 8) | 0x00), ~0, 0 > }, > { 0 } > }; > > -Erik -- Justin - 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/