Re: [-mm patch] drivers/pci/quirks.c: cleanup

[Mark M. Hoffman]

Hi Jean, Adrian, et. al.:

* Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2007-01-07 12:30:13 +0100]:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:29:13 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > While looking at the code, I also noted the following:
> > 
> > quirk_sis_96x_compatible() is pretty useless since all it does is to set 
> > a static variable that is only used in a printk().
> > 
> > quirk_sis_96x_compatible() was added with:
> > 
> > 
> >     2003/05/13 13:48:50-07:00 mhoffman
> >     [PATCH] i2c: Add SiS96x I2C/SMBus driver
> >     
> >     This patch adds support for the SMBus of SiS96x south
> >     bridges.  It is based on i2c-sis645.c from the lm sensors
> >     project, which never made it into an official kernel and
> >     was anyway mis-named.
> >     
> >     This driver works on my SiS 645/961 board vs w83781d.
> > 
> > 
> > It's usage in
> > 
> > 
> > static void __init quirk_sis_503_smbus(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> >        if (sis_96x_compatible)
> >                quirk_sis_96x_smbus(dev);
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > Was removed in
> > 
> > 
> > Author: torvalds <torvalds>
> > Date:   Thu Oct 30 19:03:38 2003 +0000
> > 
> >     Stop SIS 96x chips from lying about themselves.
> >     
> >     Some machines with the SIS 96x southbridge have it set up
> >     to claim it is a SIS 503 chip. That breaks irq routing logic
> >     among other things. Fix it properly by making everybody aware
> >     of the duplicity.
> > 
> > 
> > Was this intentional (and quirk_sis_96x_compatible() should be removed), 
> > or is this a bug that should be fixed?
> 
> I noticed this too in April 2006, see:
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2006-April/016016.html
> 
> Quoting myself back then:
> "The whole sis_96x_compatible stuff looks superfluous now. It was used
> before 2.6.0-test10, but we could certainly get rid of it now."
> 
> I do not think there is a bug here, or someone would have complained by
> now. Note though that I do not have a SiS-based motherboard to test on.
> Mark may be able to help with testing.

It's just cruft from the original quirk.  The "compatible" printk could have
had value as a diagnostic in case the new quirk didn't work for some reason,
but I never saw any complaints about it (apart from the link order problem,
which is something different.)  It's safe to remove by now.

Regards,

-- 
Mark M. Hoffman
mhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/