Re: [PATCH 2/2] sb_edac: Claim a different PCI device

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Aristeu Rozanski <aris@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 02:45:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> sb_edac controls a large number of different PCI functions.  Rather
>> than registering as a normal PCI driver for all of them, it
>> registers for just one so that it gets probed and, at probe time, it
>> looks for all the others.
>>
>> Coincidentally, the device it registers for also contains the SMBUS
>> registers, so the PCI core will refuse to probe both sb_edac and a
>> future iMC SMBUS driver.  The drivers don't actually conflict, so
>> just change sb_edac's device table to probe a different device.
>>
>> An alternative fix would be to merge the two drivers, but sb_edac
>> will also refuse to load on non-ECC systems, whereas i2c_imc would
>> still be useful without ECC.
>>
>> The only user-visible change should be that sb_edac appears to bind
>> a different device.
>>
>> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Rui Wang <ruiv.wang@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>> ---
>>  drivers/edac/sb_edac.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
>> index a2597e9313c6..e3bc2cced580 100644
>> --- a/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/sb_edac.c
>> @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static const struct pci_id_table pci_dev_descr_ibridge_table[] = {
>>   *   pci_device_id   table for which devices we are looking for
>>   */
>>  static const struct pci_device_id sbridge_pci_tbl[] = {
>> -     {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SBRIDGE_IMC_TA)},
>> +     {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SBRIDGE_IMC_HA0)},
>>       {PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_IBRIDGE_IMC_HA0_TA)},
>>       {0,}                    /* 0 terminated list. */
>>  };
>
> Acked-by: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@redhat.com>
>

Whose tree will this go through?

FWIW, this git am can't apply this to 3.17-rc4, but git am --3way can,
and it's a one-liner in any case.  Should I send a trivially rebased
version?

--Andy

> --
> Aristeu
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC