On 18.08.2008 09:27, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Index: corebootv3-pci_device_better_prints_comments/device/pci_device.c
--- corebootv3-pci_device_better_prints_comments/device/pci_device.c (Revision 780) +++ corebootv3-pci_device_better_prints_comments/device/pci_device.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -950,12 +950,30 @@ /**
- Scan a PCI bus.
- Determine the existence of a given PCI device.
- Determine the existence of a given PCI device. Allocate a new struct device
- if dev==NULL was passed in and the device exists in hardware.
- @param dev Pointer to the device structure if it already is in the device
tree, i.e. was specified in the dts. It may not exist on hardware,
however. Looking for hardware not yet in the device tree has this
parameter as NULL.- @param bus Pointer to the bus structure.
- @param devfn A device/function number.
- @return The device structure for the device (if found)
or the NULL if no device is found.
- @return The device structure for the device if it exists in hardware
or the passed in device structure with enabled=0 if the device
does not exist in hardware and only in the tree
or NULL if no device is found and dev==NULL was passed in.
- There are three cases:
.. of what?
What about "There are three cases for which this function is called:"
- known knowns. In this case the device is in the tree, i.e. not NULL,
- and we know it's there: it's soldered down or part of the on-chip
- hardware. In this case dev is not NULL.
- known unknowns. This is a device that might be there, but we don't
- know. So we have to probe it. It's in the dts, which is why
- it is a known unknown.
How s the function called for the known knowns? Those are neither PCI
Did you mean "called for the known UNknowns"?
cards nor stuff in the DTS according to your description? So where does it come from?
The first two cases are for devices which are in the dts and therefore in the tree.
- unknown unknowns. A PCI card in a PCI slot. We can't cover all
- possible cards. dev is NULL. We are checking to see if something is
- there; if so, we will allocate a dev and put it in the three.
@@ -1011,8 +1029,8 @@ if ((id == 0xffffffff) || (id == 0x00000000) || (id == 0x0000ffff) || (id == 0xffff0000)) { if (dev->enabled) {
printk(BIOS_INFO,"Disabling static device: %s\n",
printk(BIOS_INFO, "PCI: Static device not ""found, setting enabled=0: %s\n", dev_path(dev));I dislike this change of output. It's not a BIOS_DEBUG message.
Do you dislike the severity level (same as before) or the new wording (the old wording was wrong)?
dev->enabled = 0; }
Regards, Carl-Daniel