On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:33:57PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > Actually they better be ... we'll get into real trouble if they're not > because of the way we flatten the space for multiple bus binding > drivers. Er ... where do we do that? As far as I'm aware, to bind to multiple busses, you register multiple foo_driver. They're separate namespaces. > Even if I accepted your argument, I still can't see why we'd only > implement this for PCI, and thus why it shouldn't be in the generic > device part (except possibly with a bus type name qualifier). Adding the bus name qualifier would work. It seems like much more typing, in order to get what advantage over just implementing it for PCI? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
