Am Mittwoch, 26. April 2006 00:00 schrieb Kristen Accardi:
>On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 08:16 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 15:50 -0700, Kristen Accardi wrote:
>> > Don't call pci_enable_device from pciehp because the pcie port service
>> > driver already does this.
>>
>> hmmmm shouldn't pci_enable_device on a previously enabled device just
>> succeed? Sounds more than logical to me to make it that way at least...
>
>I can't think of any reason why not. Something like this what you had
>in mind perhaps?
>
>---
> drivers/pci/pci.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>--- 2.6-git-pcie.orig/drivers/pci/pci.c
>+++ 2.6-git-pcie/drivers/pci/pci.c
>@@ -504,11 +504,15 @@ pci_enable_device_bars(struct pci_dev *d
> int
> pci_enable_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
>- int err = pci_enable_device_bars(dev, (1 << PCI_NUM_RESOURCES) - 1);
>- if (err)
>- return err;
>- pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_enable, dev);
>- dev->is_enabled = 1;
>+ int err;
>+
>+ if (!dev->is_enabled) {
>+ err = pci_enable_device_bars(dev, (1 << PCI_NUM_RESOURCES) - 1);
>+ if (err)
>+ return err;
>+ pci_fixup_device(pci_fixup_enable, dev);
>+ dev->is_enabled = 1;
>+ }
> return 0;
> }
What about
if (dev->is_enabled)
return 0;
and leaving the rest as it is? This would save one level of identation.
Opinions?
Eike
Attachment:
pgpAp6IOhwypv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- From: Kristen Accardi <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- From: Kristen Accardi <[email protected]>
- [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- Prev by Date: Re: PCI ROM resource allocation issue with 2.6.17-rc2
- Next by Date: Re: PCI ERROR: Segmentation fault in pci_do_scan_bus
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] pciehp: dont call pci_enable_dev
- Index(es):
 |