On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:17:45AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Modified: trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/arch/i386/boot/linuxbios_table.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/arch/i386/boot/linuxbios_table.c 2007-10-23
> 19:23:52 UTC (rev 2889)
> +++ trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/arch/i386/boot/linuxbios_table.c 2007-10-23
> 22:17:45 UTC (rev 2890)
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
> {
> static const struct {
> uint32_t tag;
> - const uint8_t *string;
> + const char *string;
Yep.
> Modified: trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/boot/elfboot.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/boot/elfboot.c 2007-10-23 19:23:52 UTC (rev
> 2889)
> +++ trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/boot/elfboot.c 2007-10-23 22:17:45 UTC (rev
> 2890)
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
> {
> struct verify_callback *cb_chain;
> unsigned char *note, *end;
> - char *program, *version;
> + unsigned char *program, *version;
This doesn't look like the correct fix. Strings should always be 'char *'
or 'const char *' IMO, so the code where program/version is used should
be fixed instead.
> Modified: trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/device_util.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/device_util.c 2007-10-23 19:23:52 UTC
> (rev 2889)
> +++ trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/device_util.c 2007-10-23 22:17:45 UTC
> (rev 2890)
> @@ -454,7 +454,7 @@
> void report_resource_stored(device_t dev, struct resource *resource, const
> char *comment)
> {
> if (resource->flags & IORESOURCE_STORED) {
> - unsigned char buf[10];
> + char buf[10];
If buf contains a string, yes. If it should contain 8bit data, it should
be uint8_t or u8.
> unsigned long long base, end;
> base = resource->base;
> end = resource_end(resource);
>
> Modified: trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/hypertransport.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/hypertransport.c 2007-10-23 19:23:52 UTC
> (rev 2889)
> +++ trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/src/devices/hypertransport.c 2007-10-23 22:17:45 UTC
> (rev 2890)
> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@
> #include <part/hard_reset.h>
> #include <part/fallback_boot.h>
>
> +/* The hypertransport link is already optimized in pre-ram code
> + * so don't do it again
> + */
> #define OPT_HT_LINK 0
>
> #if OPT_HT_LINK == 1
> @@ -123,15 +126,17 @@
>
> static int ht_setup_link(struct ht_link *prev, device_t dev, unsigned pos)
> {
> +#if OPT_HT_LINK == 1
> static const uint8_t link_width_to_pow2[]= { 3, 4, 0, 5, 1, 2, 0, 0 };
> static const uint8_t pow2_to_link_width[] = { 0x7, 4, 5, 0, 1, 3 };
> - struct ht_link cur[1];
> unsigned present_width_cap, upstream_width_cap;
> unsigned present_freq_cap, upstream_freq_cap;
> unsigned ln_present_width_in, ln_upstream_width_in;
> unsigned ln_present_width_out, ln_upstream_width_out;
> unsigned freq, old_freq;
> unsigned present_width, upstream_width, old_width;
> +#endif
> + struct ht_link cur[1];
This change is not trivial, as it might very well have effects on the
run-time behaviour of LinuxBIOS / the hardware.
Can we say for sure that there's no reason to (re-)initialize here?
Is this tested on hardware?
Uwe.
--
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
