From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ide: ide-generic, add another device exception Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:57:20 +0200 Message-ID: <46640C30.9050808@gmail.com> References: <20601315171560711667@wsc.cz> <46640ABA.7010308@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:2708 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751961AbXFDM5M (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:57:12 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so742966ugf for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:57:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46640ABA.7010308@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Korb , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Sergei Shtylyov napsal(a): > 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. regards, -- http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/ Jiri Slaby faculty of informatics, masaryk university, brno, cz e-mail: jirislaby gmail com, gpg pubkey fingerprint: B674 9967 0407 CE62 ACC8 22A0 32CC 55C3 39D4 7A7E