[PATCH] Support old libpci <2.2.4

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

libpci < 2.2.4 can not store class info in struct pci_dev.
Read class info manually and store it in a separate variable.

Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Index: flashrom-libpci_old_workaround/board_enable.c
===================================================================
--- flashrom-libpci_old_workaround/board_enable.c	(Revision 997)
+++ flashrom-libpci_old_workaround/board_enable.c	(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -789,9 +789,11 @@

/* First, look for a known LPC bridge */
    for (dev = pacc->devices; dev; dev = dev->next) {
-		pci_fill_info(dev, PCI_FILL_CLASS);
+		uint16_t device_class;
+		/* libpci before version 2.2.4 does not store class info. */
+		device_class = pci_read_word(dev, PCI_CLASS_DEVICE);
    	if ((dev->vendor_id == 0x8086) &&
-		    (dev->device_class == 0x0601)) { /* ISA Bridge */
+		    (device_class == 0x0601)) { /* ISA Bridge */
    		/* Is this device in our list? */
    		for (i = 0; intel_ich_gpio_table[i].id; i++)
    			if (dev->device_id == intel_ich_gpio_table[i].id)

[Stefan Reinauer]

On 5/14/10 4:00 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> libpci < 2.2.4 can not store class info in struct pci_dev.
> Read class info manually and store it in a separate variable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask people to update their libpci?
pciutils 2.2.3 is more than 4 years old.

Stefan

[Peter Lemenkov]

2010/5/14 Stefan Reinauer :
> On 5/14/10 4:00 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > libpci < 2.2.4 can not store class info in struct pci_dev.
> > Read class info manually and store it in a separate variable.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to ask people to update their libpci?
> pciutils 2.2.3 is more than 4 years old.

It can be very hard - for example in so-called 'enterprise'
distributions, which claims  API/ABI compatibility as its key feature.
Thus sometimes it takes a lot of time to convince maintainer(s) to
update package even in case of a minor version upgrade (especially
then no bugs were filed against old version of package).

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 14.05.2010 11:51, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/5/14 Stefan Reinauer :
> > On 5/14/10 4:00 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > > libpci < 2.2.4 can not store class info in struct pci_dev.
> > > Read class info manually and store it in a separate variable.
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to ask people to update their libpci?
> > pciutils 2.2.3 is more than 4 years old.

Two reasons for this change:
- If we want to get flashrom working with libpayload, we'd better not
rely on the more exotic features of libpci because every such feature
has to be coded up and I don't think we want to link flashrom-as-payload
against the whole libpci.
- The enterprise distro problem mentioned below.
> It can be very hard - for example in so-called 'enterprise'
> distributions, which claims  API/ABI compatibility as its key feature.
> Thus sometimes it takes a lot of time to convince maintainer(s) to
> update package even in case of a minor version upgrade (especially
> then no bugs were filed against old version of package).

In this case, the patch was motivated by a user request about flashrom
on Fedora Core 1 with Linux kernel 2.4. Now if this request had been
about removal of C99 constructs, I'd have refused, but an one-liner like
the one I sent is IMHO a small price to pay.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

[Uwe Hermann]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> If we want to get flashrom working with libpayload, we'd better not
>
> rely on the more exotic features of libpci because every such feature
> has to be coded up and I don't think we want to link flashrom-as-payload
> against the whole libpci.
> The enterprise distro problem mentioned below.

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't make sense to support arbitrarily old
versions, but this one still seems to be in use nowadays and the fix
is pretty simple in this case, so why not...

Acked-by: Uwe Hermann

Uwe.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 20.05.2010 21:14, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:25:40PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> > If we want to get flashrom working with libpayload, we'd better not
> >
> > rely on the more exotic features of libpci because every such feature
> > has to be coded up and I don't think we want to link flashrom-as-payload
> > against the whole libpci.
> > The enterprise distro problem mentioned below.
>
> Yeah, I agree. It doesn't make sense to support arbitrarily old
> versions, but this one still seems to be in use nowadays and the fix
> is pretty simple in this case, so why not...
>
> Acked-by: Uwe Hermann

Thanks, committed in r1004.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel