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
_______________________________________________
SeaBIOS mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
