On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:44:16AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 04.02.2010 04:07, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 01:58:53AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 29.01.2010 01:40, Michael Karcher wrote:
--- a/board_enable.c +++ b/board_enable.c @@ -1312,7 +1312,8 @@ static struct board_pciid_enable *board_match_pci_card_ids(void) struct board_pciid_enable *board = board_pciid_enables;
for (; board->vendor_name; board++) {
if (!board->first_card_vendor || !board->first_card_device)
if (!board->first_card_vendor ||
(!board->first_card_device && !board->dmi_pattern)) continue;
if (!pci_card_find(board->first_vendor, board->first_device,
This code still requires a nonzero subsystem vendor even if a DMI pattern is present. If that is intentional (I thought DMI would eliminate subsystem vendor+device requirement), the patch is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel
It probably should be an || there.
No, that would invert the logic and make DMI an absolute requirement for all boards.
Regards, Carl-Daniel
Yes, coin just dropped too reading your answer to stepan. :)
Luc Verhaegen.