In message: <42D9DA05.1020806_at_root.org> Nate Lawson <nate_at_root.org> writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : > <the refs are wrong for this reply> : > Nate writes: : > : >>I really think the driver is broken and the API is fine for this. I : >>don't like the hack of returning a random CID for checks against the : >>HID. Drivers down the road may come to rely on this and then every BIOS : >>that has a different order for CIDs becomes a potential breakage point. : > : > : > They alredy do rely on this. When they support pnp, they call the : > ISA_PNP_PROBE routine. When they don't then your observation doesn't : > matter because the order of the IDs doesn't matter: their non-zeroness : > does. : > : > : >>Drivers should not rely on isa_get_logicalid() to determine a boolean : >>"is PNP?" : > : > : > Actually, that's the interface. We have to follow it, even if you : > think it is stupid. It is how we do things. When we don't have a : > logicalid, we return 0. When drivers don't support pnp devices, it : > uses the existance of a non-zero pnpid to know the device isn't for : > them. It has been this way since 3.0. : > : > Warner : : Rather than John's addition of returning an arbitrary CID, can we return : ~0 or some other obviously invalid HID so that drivers don't start : depending on the order of CIDs? That might not be a bad idea. I'm not sure the right thing to do is. I know this would break at least one sound driver, but I believe that sound driver is broken anyway. WarnerReceived on Sun Jul 17 2005 - 04:52:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:39 UTC