On 8/24/2018 4:02 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 08/24/18 09:48, Liu, Jing2 wrote:
[...]
>> + if (pci_config_readw(bdf, PCI_VENDOR_ID) != >> PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT) { >> + dprintf(1, "PCI: QEMU resource reserve cap vendor ID >> doesn't >> match.\n"); > > I'd suggest to use a higher debug level for this one, 3 would be a > good > pick I think. level 1 messages are printed by default, and we should > not spam the log just because there is a non-qemu bridge present > in the > system. OK. Will do that.
With the debug level update, I'm ready to give my R-b for this series.
Thanks for your feedback! So do I need update another version and with your R-b?
I imagine you'd post v3 with the update Gerd requested for the debug level(s), and then I'd respond with my R-b. (Obviously I'm not a SeaBIOS maintainer so that'll not be "decisive" by any means.)
Oh, BTW, I am considering, if only dismatch vendor-id stands for "non-qemu bridge" or dismatch both vid and did? I guess I need change both.
I don't understand. Can you post an incremental diff in this thread just for illustration?
We check vendor-id/device-id and report when dismatch. My question is, Gerd suggested "not spam the log just because there is a non-qemu bridge present", so I think if both vendor-id and device-id dismatch means non-qemu bridge present?
+ if (pci_config_readw(bdf, PCI_VENDOR_ID) != PCI_VENDOR_ID_REDHAT) { + dprintf(3, "PCI: QEMU resource reserve cap vendor ID doesn't match.\n"); + return 0; + } + + device_id = pci_config_readw(bdf, PCI_DEVICE_ID); + + if (device_id != PCI_DEVICE_ID_REDHAT_ROOT_PORT && + device_id != PCI_DEVICE_ID_REDHAT_BRIDGE) { + dprintf(3, "PCI: QEMU resource reserve cap device ID doesn't match.\n"); + return 0; + }
Thanks Laszlo