From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jbarnes@sgi.com (Jesse Barnes) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:43:39 +0000 Subject: Re: SAL version checking Message-Id: <20040223214339.GA8778@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <20040223210103.GG25779@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040223210103.GG25779@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:21:01PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:09:20PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > It looks reasonable to me, though I thought we were the only ones that > > cared about PROM revisions ;). If you go ahead and push this in, we > > could use it in arch/ia64/sn/kernel/setup.c, where we check for > > incompatibilties bad enough to cause us to bail out... > > Well, you *were* the only ones who cared about SAL revisions ;-) > Actually, this isn't quite what you want. I'm asking the firmware > what rev of the SAL spec it reports; you want version number of the > prom. I want sal_rev_major/minor; you want sal_b_rev_major/minor. Right, I realized that after I sent the mail... > I don't see why we shouldn't do both, and possibly even print both. > I've occasionally wondered what rev of firmware I'm running and > rebooting to figure that out is less satisfactory than grovelling through > /var/log/dmesg. Yeah, it would be nice to have it more generally available. It's one of those few printk's which is actually useful. :) Jesse