On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:14 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > 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. Yes, you're right. I was sure there was some way of flattening the namespace so we mixed bus_ids but perhaps Kay fixed it all. > > 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? The advantage is it's done generically and so works for all buses instead of just PCI. The disadvantage, I suppose, is that the matching must be on only things the generic model knows about, however, the proposal was PCI IDs, that doesn't seem to be a problem ... if you were to make it PCIe DSN then yes, it would be harder to do it generically. James -- 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
