From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757606Ab0GBU6m (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:58:42 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:51612 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752619Ab0GBU6k (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:58:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4C2E52DD.2050306@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:58:05 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner , "Luck, Tony" CC: Feng Tang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, jacob.jun.pan@intel.com, dtor@mail.ru, randy.dunlap@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] input: i8042 - add runtime check in x86's i8042_platform_init References: <1278059716-7147-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1278059716-7147-6-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Cc: Tony Luck] On 07/02/2010 01:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, feng.tang@intel.com wrote: > >> From: Feng Tang >> >> Then it will first check x86_platforms's i8042 detection result, >> then go on with normal probe. >> >> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov >> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang >> --- >> drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h | 4 ++++ >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h b/drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h >> index 6168469..2e14fc5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h >> +++ b/drivers/input/serio/i8042-x86ia64io.h >> @@ -840,6 +840,10 @@ static int __init i8042_platform_init(void) >> { >> int retval; >> >> + /* Just return if pre-detection shows no i8042 controller exist */ >> + if (!x86_platform.i8042_detect()) >> + return -ENODEV; > > That's going to break IA64 :( > I have to say there is an awful lot of code in that file which is specific to x86 (more so than IA64)... anyone has a feel if it would make sense to break it up? -hpa