From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:54:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:54:21 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([62.49.180.5]:62185 "EHLO noodles.codemonkey.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:54:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:55:30 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Patrick Mochel Cc: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Defining new section for bus driver init Message-ID: <20020115025530.A11314@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Patrick Mochel , Linux Kernel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Attached is a patch that creates a new section for device subsystem init > calls. With it, the root bus init calls are handled just like init calls > - the section consists of a table of function pointers. > device_driver_init() iterates over that table and calls each one. > (device_driver_init() currently happens just before that pci_init() call > above). > What do people think about the concept? Well, it chops out a load of ugly ifdefs, and makes adding support for a new bus less intrusive than it currently is. I quite like it. > I will warn that the name is kinda clumsy, but it's the best that I could > come up with (I wasted my creativity for the day on thinking about > Penelope). I used "subsystem" because I have alterior motives. I think you hit the nail on the head with the subject line. struct BusDriver also conjures up amusing[*] imagery. One thing I'm wondering about though. Is it possible for a new bus to be added after boot ? Docking stations etc show up as children on the root PCI bus, so that shouldn't be an issue. Ah! hotplug PCI USB controller ? Dave. [*] I'm easily amused. -- Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk SuSE Labs.