On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > Ok, from my reading of this horrible chunk of code it does the > following: > - if this is a isa based controller, then we check the region > that is to be used. > - If it is already in use by someone else, then we skip it, and > move on to the next address. > - If it is not in use, then we pass the address down to the chip > driver and let it try to find the chip at this address (it > will do the reserving of the address space on its own.) > > So basically, check_region is pretty valid here, as we are trying to see > if something else is already at this address, to try to prevent i2c > drivers from stomping on each other. I replaced this with a > request_region()/release_region() pair to get rid of the compiler > warning. > > Is this your understanding too? Or do you think we should just get rid > of the request_region() check here all together? Yes, either we should get rid of it or move claiming the address to the i2c midlayer (not sure whether that's a good idea). But an opencoded check_region doesn't make any more sense than an explicit one. And you're also looking at the pointer it returned after it's already invalid again.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
