On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 22:39 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Patch to make detection of boot video device more robust. Should I
> leave the printk in?
Hrm... yes, but make it KERN_DEBUG.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL P
Patch to make detection of boot video device more robust. Should I
leave the printk in?
--
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
= arch/i386/pci/fixup.c 1.24 vs edited =
--- 1.24/arch/i386/pci/fixup.c 2005-01-11 19:42:41 -05:00
+++ edited/arch/i386/pci/fixup.c2005-03-10 22:32:35 -05:00
@@
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 00:57 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:38:29 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi !
> >
> > While working on writing a VGA access arbiter for kernel & userland,
> > I wondered how to properly get my "initial" state at boot. For tha
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:38:29 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi !
>
> While working on writing a VGA access arbiter for kernel & userland,
> I wondered how to properly get my "initial" state at boot. For that,
> I looked at how the new PCI ROM stuff does to find out who
Hi !
While working on writing a VGA access arbiter for kernel & userland,
I wondered how to properly get my "initial" state at boot. For that,
I looked at how the new PCI ROM stuff does to find out who owns the
memory shadow at c, and found it quite bogus.
>From what I see, the code is only b
5 matches
Mail list logo