On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:48:14 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 15:54 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:03 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > What about printing "No PCI ROM detected" ? I like having that info when > > > getting user reports, but I agree that a less worrying message would > > > be good. > > > > Ok, how about this then? It changes the printks in both drivers to > > KERN_INFO > > and describes the situation a bit more accurately. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Thanks, > > Jesse > > > > P.S. Jon, I think the pci_map_rom code is buggy--if the option ROM signature > > is missing or indicates that there's no ROM, the routine still returns a > > valid pointer making the caller thing it succeeded. If we fix that up we > > can > > fix up the callers. > > No, pci_map_rom shouldn't test the signature IMHO. While PCI ROMs should > have the signature to be recognized as containing valid firmware images > on x86 BIOSes an OF, it's just a convention on these platforms, and I > would rather let people put whatever they want in those ROMs and still > let them map it... >
pci_map_rom will return a pointer to any ROM it finds. It the signature is invalid the size returned will be zero. Is this ok or do we want it to do something different? -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
