On 24.10.2009 00:42, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:49:18PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
On 23.10.2009 16:27, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 01:41:41AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Yes, but the way you suggested keeps the description around in a comment and an error message. That's duplication.
Yeah, we can do away with this duplication by turning that into one function which takes the name as the argument.
If we're trying to rebuild the device name printing of lspci, we might as well have a function which looks up the name.
Let's use your original pci_dev_find variant and refactor it later. Right now this discussion is leading nowhere and I want the important parts of the patch merged.
Yeah, this way it is at least in the same shape as the other functions, and this refactoring (of all) can be done later without much danger, the touching of extra gpio bits now is much more likely to break things.
Right.
If we get reports from our testers that everything is fine indeed, I'm OK with either byte or word or dword access.
Wait and see. I will try to get this one board enable resent, on top of this patch here. And will get idwer his board enable out (finally). This is two more testcases.
Good.
The pain is in boards with multiple flash chips where flashrom may toggle the chip select lines in the future (DualBIOS). Anyway, we can handle this later.
Right, solve it when it occurs and when we know what it is exactly that we need to do.
Just wanted to mention it. We'll probably deal with this later.
- part of the dell comment restored.
Done.
Thanks.
Latest patch attached, difference is just those two comments and the intel_ prependage (and the fact that i now went to git-svn so i can juggle the patches more easily). INL/OUTL was kept while waiting for testing.
I have one more comment, but feel free to address this in a followup patch: You're not checking the GPIO number against the upper limit of available GPIOs per chipset. This can lead to unpleasant accidents if someone specifies a GPIO bitmask instead of a GPIO number (like it happened ~2 weeks ago).
If you're going to send a followup with the GPIO number checking mentioned above, this is Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net
Regards, Carl-Daniel