From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:17:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:17:43 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:48024 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:17:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3B3B9F11.D83BDFDF@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:18:09 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?= Roudier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Changes for PCI In-Reply-To: <20010628223210.Q1578-100000@> <3B3B9D83.F95D4496@vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tom Gall wrote: > Gérard Roudier wrote: > > The driver checks against PCI bus+dev+func in 2 situations: > > > > 1) To apply the boot order that user can set up in the controller NVRAMs. > > 2) To detect buggy double reporting of the same device by the kernel PCI > > code (this made lot of troubles at some time). > > Thanks much for the clarification. Do you still battle buggy double reporting? > Has this been fixed? Is it a bug on some specific architecture? I've seen it occur in 2.2.x in buggy drivers, but in 2.4 the driver should -not- have to check for this. The PCI core takes care of it. -- Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse. Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |