[coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2010-12-28 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
Dear maintainers of the superiotool, I have the following "feature request" (maybe not a bug report): I have this idea that superiotool should be able to detect more than one SuperIO chip in the system. Such detection of multiple chips may work in some cases, but may fail in others. The primar

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2010-12-28 Thread David Hendricks
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Frantisek Rysanek < frantisek.rysa...@post.cz> wrote: > Dear maintainers of the superiotool, > > I have the following "feature request" (maybe not a bug report): > I have this idea that superiotool should be able to detect more than > one SuperIO chip in the system

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2010-12-30 Thread Stefan Reinauer
On 12/28/10 11:51 PM, David Hendricks wrote: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Frantisek Rysanek > mailto:frantisek.rysa...@post.cz>> wrote: > > Dear maintainers of the superiotool, > > I have the following "feature request" (maybe not a bug report): > I have this idea that superiotool

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2010-12-30 Thread Stefan Reinauer
On 12/30/10 12:13 PM, Stefan Reinauer wrote: > On 12/28/10 11:51 PM, David Hendricks wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Frantisek Rysanek >> mailto:frantisek.rysa...@post.cz>> wrote: >> >> Dear maintainers of the superiotool, >> >> I have the following "feature request" (maybe not a

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2011-01-03 Thread Frantisek Rysanek
Dear gentlemen, thanks for the polite responses from Mr. Hendricks and Herr Reinauer. I have some further notes... As top-posting is a big no-no at least in the LKML, see my further comments way below :-) -- On 28 Dec 2010 at 23:51, David Hendrick

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2011-01-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Stefan Reinauer wrote: > That function is called with a port address. There can only be one chip > at one port address. But the same function can be called with a different port, and should find another chip. I think David's suggestion is the way to go. //Peter -- coreboot mailing list: corebo

Re: [coreboot] superiotool sometimes skips further SuperIO chips in the system - suggested remedy included

2011-01-03 Thread Peter Stuge
Frantisek Rysanek wrote: > I'd like to offer a bit of my own time to add such a global index of > "ports occupied" (likely not "devices detected" - see above why). Great! Please send the patch with Signed-off-by according to the coreboot development guidelines: (they are short) http://www.corebo