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
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.
Luc Verhaegen.
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
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.
Am Donnerstag, den 04.02.2010, 01:58 +0100 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
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.
That condition is completely wrong. I meant (!board->first_card_vendor && !board->dmi_pattern). The idea is that a zero subsystem ID is fine when matching with DMI, but the zero subsystem ID is still matched by pci_card_find.
If that is intentional (I thought DMI would eliminate subsystem vendor+device requirement),
No, DMI was not meant to make softer matching in PCI space, just to make stronger matches. The patch is just to avoid bogus rejects on boards with no subsystem IDs (meaning subsystem ID zero) at all.
Regards, Michael Karcher
This is needed for the Intel SE440BX-2 as well as the Asus P5A.
Thanks to Carl-Daniel Hailfinger for pointing out wrong logic in the patch.
Zach: please retry with this one instead of the previous version of this patch. You can unpatch the previous version by patch -R < oldpatch.diff
Signed-off-by: Michael Karcher flashrom@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de --- board_enable.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board_enable.c b/board_enable.c index 40db653..66afab4 100644 --- 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,
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Luc Verhaegen -
Michael Karcher