From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266632AbUBQX46 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:56:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266696AbUBQX46 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:56:58 -0500 Received: from delerium.kernelslacker.org ([81.187.208.145]:53403 "EHLO delerium.codemonkey.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266632AbUBQX45 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:56:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:54:31 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Linux Kernel Cc: Marc Zyngier Subject: EISA & sysfs. Message-ID: <20040217235431.GF6242@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Marc Zyngier Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm somewhat puzzled about the case where we have a driver that can work on EISA bus, as well as others, when modprobe'd on a system that doesn't have an EISA bus. It seems we do a probe really early on to see if we actually have an eisa bus, but if a driver later calls eisa_driver_register() we still do lots of hoop jumping through sysfs/kobjects before deciding that we don't have the device. Wouldn't it make sense to have eisa_driver_register() check that the root EISA bus actually got registered, and if not, -ENODEV immediately ? Dave