From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this? Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:20:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20080215152008.GA1975@kroah.com> References: <20080213001506.GA13933@kroah.com> <20080213001638.GB13933@kroah.com> <20080213093225.GA16985@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <20080213173203.GC10733@kroah.com> <20080213174711.GB22274@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <20080213181459.GA8960@kroah.com> <20080215071703.GA9022@kroah.com> <20080215074827.GE4334@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36603 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751709AbYBOPX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:23:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080215074827.GE4334@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Muli Ben-Yehuda Cc: jdmason@kudzu.us, bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > In conclusion, our usage doesn't seem lika a good fit for the probe > approach, although it could probably converted provided we got the > ordering right with regards to regular PCI device > initialization. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort. After reading this, and looking at the code again, I agree. Thanks for the great explaination, I'll leave the code alone now :) thanks, greg k-h