On 04/11/10 03:40, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:13:27 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:41:18 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote: >>> On 26/10/10 02:10, Emilio G. Cota wrote: >>>> From: Emilio G. Cota <cota@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> In a configuration with several bridges, each bridge is >>>> assigned a certain bus number depending on the order in which >>>> vme_register_bridge is called. This can complicate multi-bridge >>>> installations because the eventual bus numbers will depend >>>> on the order the bridges were loaded. >>>> >>>> The appended allows bridges to register with a bus number of >>>> their choice, while keeping the previous 'first come, first >>>> served' behaviour as the default. >>>> >>> >>> I can't see where this is being used. >> >> Each driver's .probe is fed with bus_number and slot_number. >> Normally the driver will check that pair against what it received >> through modparams and act accordingly. >> >> For this to be reliable bus numbering should be consistent on >> a given system, i.e. it should be possible to always allocate >> the same bus number to a given bus. Otherwise, depending on >> which bridge is installed first, we'd get different bus numbers >> assigned. >> >> Does that make it clearer now? >> >>> I assume this is a part of future changes you wish to make? >> >> AFAICT it affects the current model. > > Martyn, > > Have you had time to re-check this one? > I'm afraid I haven't - I'm rather tied up at the moment. I'll try and set aside some time next week to look at the remaining patches you sent. Martyn -- Martyn Welch (Principal Software Engineer) | Registered in England and GE Intelligent Platforms | Wales (3828642) at 100 T +44(0)127322748 | Barbirolli Square, Manchester, E martyn.welch@xxxxxx | M2 3AB VAT:GB 927559189 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
