> Maybe we should only print the message if something else than 0x
> is read? Would that be more appropriate?
> 0x is the expected read-back if there is no device, and I think
> that case should not be reported as "bad id"
>
> Like the attached one
Acked-by: Myles Watson
Thanks,
> I'm mixed on this one, but at the same time, I bet there are few
> broken devices that return 0 as there were in the old days.
In that case the check could be split, so that the message is only printed
in the cases where it isn't 0x. Then only the broken boards would
print the message.
On 4/2/10 6:09 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
>
>> See patch
>>
> I'm mixed on this one, but at the same time, I bet there are few
> broken devices that return 0 as there were in the old days.
I wonder, what would we do with them if we knew.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> See patch
I'm mixed on this one, but at the same time, I bet there are few
broken devices that return 0 as there were in the old days.
Acked-by: Ronald G. Minnich
--
coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org
http://www.coreboot.org/m
See patch
The error message is misleading, even for a SPEW, because
the slot is empty, it's NOT a bad ID (and the message is
more confusing than helpful even in SPEW)
Signed-off-by: Stefan Reinauer
Index: src/devices/pci_device.c
=
5 matches
Mail list logo