Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

2008-02-19 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 01:11:42PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 14 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > How does the patch below look? I didn't want to remove the whole config > > > option, as there is more to the logic th

Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

2008-02-14 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 01:11:42PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 14 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > How does the patch below look? I didn't want to remove the whole config > > > option, as there is more to the logic th

Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

2008-02-14 Thread Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
On Thursday 14 February 2008, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How does the patch below look? I didn't want to remove the whole config > > option, as there is more to the logic than just the "reverse order" > > stuff there. > > I think you miss Documentation - it

Re: [discuss] pci_get_device_reverse(), why does Calgary need this?

2008-02-13 Thread Andreas Jaeger
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How does the patch below look? I didn't want to remove the whole config > option, as there is more to the logic than just the "reverse order" > stuff there. I think you miss Documentation - it's mentioned in ide.txt and kernel-parameters.txt, Andreas -- A