From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aaron Young <ayoung@google.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:24:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix prom revision checks in SN kernel
Message-Id: <200606272124.OAA03883@google.engr.sgi.com>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <200606271946.MAA19328@google.engr.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <200606271946.MAA19328@google.engr.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org


 Yeah, I didn't go for any clean up. We *shouldn't* be adding
 any more explicit prom rev. checks to the code because we
 now have an interface to check for prom "features" - see
 sn_prom_feature_available().

 Unfortunately these checks were added before the interface
 was available and therefore the checks have to stay.

 I can still do some clean up if preferred.

 -Aaron

> 
> +	if (is_shub1() && version <= 0x0209 && acpi_kbd_controller_present) {
>  ...
> +	if (is_shub1() && sn_sal_rev() < 0x0406) {
>  ...
> +	if (is_shub1() && sn_sal_rev() < SGI_HOTPLUG_PROM_REV) {
> 
> 
> Is it time to come up with a more elegant way of doing this?  One
> place you have a define for the special revision, others you hard-wire
> the hex numbers.  Possibly at some point in the future you might
> have some dividing line in prom revisions for shub2 systems, so
> if you continue in this path the tests will just get uglier.
> 
> Maybe some inline functions that hide things:
> 
>     if (sn_sal_supports_fadt() && acpi_kbd_controller_present) {
> 
>     if (sn_sal_supports_tioca()) {
> 
>     if (sn_sal_support_hotplug()) {
> 
> -Tony
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>