Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:27:19PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:53:36PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
The PCI_DEVICE_TABLE patch I sent earlier doesn't necessarily make
much sense by itself... here is a set of patches that apply
this
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:27:19PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:53:36PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> >>The PCI_DEVICE_TABLE patch I sent earlier doesn't necessarily make
> >>much sense by itself... here is a set of patches that apply
> >>this macro, in
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:53:36PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
The PCI_DEVICE_TABLE patch I sent earlier doesn't necessarily make
much sense by itself... here is a set of patches that apply
this macro, in turn moving a lot of this data into __devinitconst
which is discardable in
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:53:36PM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote:
>
> The PCI_DEVICE_TABLE patch I sent earlier doesn't necessarily make
> much sense by itself... here is a set of patches that apply
> this macro, in turn moving a lot of this data into __devinitconst
> which is discardable in certain sit
The PCI_DEVICE_TABLE patch I sent earlier doesn't necessarily make much sense
by itself... here is a set of patches that apply this macro, in turn moving a
lot of this data into __devinitconst which is discardable in certain
situations. Hopefully the benefit of this approach is a bit clearer n
