From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aaron Young Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:09:16 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix prom revision checks in SN kernel Message-Id: <200606272209.PAA86361@google.engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200606271946.MAA19328@google.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200606271946.MAA19328@google.engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org > > > Yeah, I didn't go for any clean up. We *shouldn't* be adding > > any more explicit prom rev. checks to the code because we > > now have an interface to check for prom "features" - see > > sn_prom_feature_available(). > > Recollections of that in the hind-brain prompted me to think > that there should be a better way. > > > Unfortunately these checks were added before the interface > > was available and therefore the checks have to stay. > > Makes sense. > > > I can still do some clean up if preferred. > > No, 3-places doesn't really justify invention of a generic > method ... and since you've already got a better method that > will prevent this from spreading elsewhere, I'll take it > as-is. > Tony, hold up. I was just informed there is a patch in-play which will conflict with this one: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m3944733900687&w=2 It removes the prom rev. check from drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c replacing it with a sn_prom_feature_available() call. It's obviously the preferrable code. Should I resubmit without a change to drivers/pci/hotplug/sgi_hotplug.c? Thanks, -Aaron