From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:23:23 +0200
To: Adrian Cox <adrian@humboldt.co.uk>
Cc: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: Pegasos 2 support patch ...
Message-ID: <20040630162323.GA28483@pegasos>
References: <20040629165029.GA13468@pegasos> <1088587090.28598.3.camel@localhost> <20040630155027.GA27912@pegasos> <1088611966.28598.52.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <1088611966.28598.52.camel@localhost>
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>


On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:12:46PM +0100, Adrian Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 16:50, Sven Luther wrote:
> > static ide_hwif_t *ide_hwif_configure(struct pci_dev *dev,
> > 	ide_pci_device_t *d, ide_hwif_t *mate, int port, int irq)
> >
> > Would it not be better in my case to call ide_hwif_configure with the
> > right irq ? Or do i misunderstand what you had in mind ?
>
> It shouldn't make much difference - I only suggested ide_hwif_configure
> because it already contains flag checking code.

I am not sure if it works for me, but in your case, would the right
solution not be to have d->init_chipset return the irq ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/