From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ide: ide-generic, add another device exception Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:14:56 +0400 Message-ID: <46641050.1030901@ru.mvista.com> References: <20601315171560711667@wsc.cz> <46640ABA.7010308@ru.mvista.com> <46640C30.9050808@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:8499 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752427AbXFDNN0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:13:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46640C30.9050808@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Korb , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org 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