On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:19:15 -0800, Heasley, Seth wrote:
> >> --- linux-2.6.37/arch/x86/pci/irq.c.orig 2011-01-04
> >16:50:19.000000000 -0800
> >> +++ linux-2.6.37/arch/x86/pci/irq.c 2011-01-06 14:16:00.000000000
> >-0800
> >> @@ -611,6 +611,15 @@
> >> r->set = pirq_piix_set;
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + if ((device >= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DH89XXCC_LPC_MIN) &&
> >> + (device <= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_DH89XXCC_LPC_MAX)) {
> >> + r->name = "PIIX/ICH";
> >> + r->get = pirq_piix_get;
> >> + r->set = pirq_piix_set;
> >> + return 1;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> >I'm curious why we have separate sections for INTEL_5_3400_SERIES,
> >INTEL_COUGARPOINT and now INTEL_DH89XXCC? We do the same thing for all
> >3, so it would make sense to merge the tests to avoid duplicating the
> >code.
>
> Some products are defining a range of DeviceIDs rather than one or two specific IDs, so these blocks are for catching any DeviceID in the range. I'm certainly open to suggestion for a better way to handle these, and I agree that the current way is awkward.
I understand the need to have separate blocks for separate IDs and for
ID ranges. But all the ranges could be covered by the same block:
if ((device >= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_5_3400_SERIES_LPC_MIN &&
device <= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_5_3400_SERIES_LPC_MAX)
|| (device >= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_LPC_MIN &&
device <= PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_COUGARPOINT_LPC_MAX)) {
r->name = "PIIX/ICH";
r->get = pirq_piix_get;
r->set = pirq_piix_set;
return 1;
}
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
