Hi Jean, Adrian:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:13:15 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > @@ -1122,6 +1123,14 @@ static void quirk_sis_96x_smbus(struct p
> > pci_write_config_byte(dev, 0x77, val & ~0x10);
> > pci_read_config_byte(dev, 0x77, &val);
> > }
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_961, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_962, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_963, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_LPC, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_961, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_962, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_963, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_LPC, quirk_sis_96x_smbus );
> >
> > /*
> > * ... This is further complicated by the fact that some SiS96x south
> > @@ -1158,6 +1167,8 @@ static void quirk_sis_503(struct pci_dev
> > */
> > dev->device = devid;
> > }
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_HEADER(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_503, quirk_sis_503 );
> > +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_RESUME(PCI_VENDOR_ID_SI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_SI_503, quirk_sis_503 );
* Jean Delvare <[email protected]> [2007-01-05 09:52:33 +0100]:
> Was this patch tested on the SiS-based boards which need these quirks?
> I think you broke them. If I remember correctly, quirk_sis_503() must
> be called before quirk_sis_96x_smbus() for some boards to work
> properly, and we currently rely on the linking order to guarantee that.
> Likewise, quirk_sis_96x_compatible() should be called before
> quirk_sis_503() otherwise the warning message in quirk_sis_503() will
> no longer be correct.
>
> So if you want to put the calls right after the quirk functions, you
> need to reorder the functions themselves as well. Feel free to add a
> comment explaining the order requirement so that nobody breaks it
> accidentally again in the future.
It is fragile for this code to depend on link order; Adrian's obvious and
trivial cleanups broke it. Not only that, but some FC kernels had/have the
link order reversed such that this quirk is broken anyway.
I sent a patch for this back in May:
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2006-May/016113.html
There was some discussion on the linux-pci mailing list as well; can't seem to
find an archive of that though. Basically, it was not understood how the FC
kernels could have a reversed link order. I never followed up on it, my bad.
At any rate, can we please get the patch above applied? I will send a new one
if necessary.
Regards,
--
Mark M. Hoffman
[email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
