On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Alek Du wrote: > > > If those are really class identifiers then surely they > > ought to be declared symbolically in the same system > > header as the other PCI classes. > > We may have a whole PCI ID patch for Intel Moorestown Platform later. "May"? Surely you can send a patch for these two right now... > But before that, can I still use them here as this? The class id is only used here. > I will send update patch once the PCI part patch in mainline. I just do not want this > depends on the PCI part. If you really must. But I don't see what the holdup would be. > > And please explain acronyms like MRST and MPH, which > > seem unique to Intel's stuff. > > MRST = Intel Moorestown Platform which is a LPIA (Low power IA) platform > MPH = Multi-port Host, this host has integrated port controller logic for > multiple host ports (1~6 downstream port(s)). Also it supports LPM (Link Power Management). OK. I suggest the source code say "Intel Moorestown" not "MRST", and "Intel Multi-Port Host" not "MPH".. Aren't *most* root hubs a "Multi-Port Host" though? Or is the LPM support the big issue? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
