Re: [PATCH 1/1] ide: ide-generic, add another device exception

[Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>]

Hello.

Jiri Slaby wrote:

>>>diff --git a/drivers/ide/pci/generic.c b/drivers/ide/pci/generic.c
>>>index f2c5a14..0d51a11 100644
>>>--- a/drivers/ide/pci/generic.c
>>>+++ b/drivers/ide/pci/generic.c
>>>@@ -198,32 +198,41 @@ static ide_pci_device_t generic_chipsets[]
>>>__devinitdata = {
>>> static int __devinit generic_init_one(struct pci_dev *dev, const
>>>struct pci_device_id *id)
>>> {
>>>     ide_pci_device_t *d = &generic_chipsets[id->driver_data];
>>>-    u16 command;
>>>     int ret = -ENODEV;
>>> 
>>>     /* Don't use the generic entry unless instructed to do so */
>>>     if (id->driver_data == 0 && ide_generic_all == 0)
>>>             goto out;
>>> 
>>>-    if (dev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_UMC &&
>>>-        dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_UMC_UM8886A &&
>>>-        (!(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1)))
>>>-        goto out; /* UM8886A/BF pair */
>>>-
>>>-    if (dev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_OPTI &&
>>>-        dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_OPTI_82C558 &&
>>>-        (!(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1)))
>>>-        goto out;
>>>-
>>>-    if (dev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_JMICRON) {
>>>-        if (dev->device != PCI_DEVICE_ID_JMICRON_JMB368 &&
>>>PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) != 1)
>>>+    switch (dev->vendor) {
>>>+    case PCI_VENDOR_ID_UMC:
>>>+        if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_UMC_UM8886A &&
>>>+                !(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1))
>>>+            goto out; /* UM8886A/BF pair */
>>>+        break;
>>>+    case PCI_VENDOR_ID_OPTI:
>>>+        if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_OPTI_82C558 &&
>>>+                !(PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) & 1))
>>>+            goto out;
>>>+        break;
>>>+    case PCI_VENDOR_ID_JMICRON:
>>>+        if (dev->device != PCI_DEVICE_ID_JMICRON_JMB368 &&
>>>+                PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn) != 1)
>>>+            goto out;
>>>+        break;
>>>+    case PCI_VENDOR_ID_NS:
>>>+        if (dev->device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_NS_87410 &&
>>>+                (dev->class >> 8) != PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_IDE)
>>>             goto out;
>>>+        break;
>>>     }

>>  Could you intend the if() conditions carried to another line the way
>>they were intended before?

> I could, if you tell me the reason.

    Sorry -- I thought it was a part of kernel style, but it appeared to be my 
aesthetical preference only. :-)

> regards,

MBR, Sergei