Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: use our IRQ defines

Alan Cox wrote:

Ar Maw, 2006-09-26 am 22:44 +0200, ysgrifennodd Olivier Galibert:

 		if (probe_ent->irq)
-			probe_ent->irq2 = 15;
+			probe_ent->irq2 = ATA_SECONDARY_IRQ;
 		else
 			probe_ent->irq = 15;

Isn't that one supposed to be ATA_SECONDARY_IRQ too?

 		probe_ent->port[1].cmd_addr = ATA_SECONDARY_CMD;

Duh yes...

(adds another paper bag to the pile)

committed obvious fix...


-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] libata-sff: use our IRQ defines
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: use our IRQ defines
    • From: Olivier Galibert <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: use our IRQ defines
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: pata_serverworks oopses in latest -git
• Next by Date: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: use our IRQ defines
• Next by thread: [PATCH] libata-eh: Remove layering violation and duplication when handling absent ports
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]