On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2008/2/27, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 2008/2/24, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 06:45:33AM +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> > > > > > + /* Identify PCI-E cards */
> > > > > > + if((srev >= AR5K_SREV_VER_AR2424 && srev <= AR5K_SREV_VER_AR5424) ||
> > > > > > + srev >= AR5K_SREV_VER_AR5416) {
> > > > > > + ah->ah_pcie = true;
> >
> >
> > struct pci_dev now has member, "is_pcie" which could be used here I
> > think instead. No need to add to ath5k_hw the ah_pcie then.
> >
> >
> > Luis
> >
>
> What if there is a pci-e card in the future that needs _PCI bit ?
I don't follow, the member is for struct pci_dev so its either a pci
or pci-express device. If you mean what if we later have some srev in
the range that is not pci-e, well then we'd use srevs wouldn't we?
> I guess for now we can work on with srevs to be safe but it's good to
> know of that feature, thanx ;-)
The point is that if there is already a variable we can use to detect
if a device is pci-e then we shouldn't introduce any other new ones.
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
