Re: [PATCH] quiet non-x86 option ROM warnings

Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-02-17T22:47:50Z

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 11:33 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:48:14 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 15:54 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:03 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > What about printing "No PCI ROM detected" ? I like having that info when
> > > > getting user reports, but I agree that a less worrying message would
> > > > be good.
> > >
> > > Ok, how about this then? It changes the printks in both drivers to KERN_INFO
> > > and describes the situation a bit more accurately.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jesse
> > >
> > > P.S. Jon, I think the pci_map_rom code is buggy--if the option ROM signature
> > > is missing or indicates that there's no ROM, the routine still returns a
> > > valid pointer making the caller thing it succeeded. If we fix that up we can
> > > fix up the callers.
> >
> > No, pci_map_rom shouldn't test the signature IMHO. While PCI ROMs should
> > have the signature to be recognized as containing valid firmware images
> > on x86 BIOSes an OF, it's just a convention on these platforms, and I
> > would rather let people put whatever they want in those ROMs and still
> > let them map it...
> >
>
> pci_map_rom will return a pointer to any ROM it finds. It the
> signature is invalid the size returned will be zero. Is this ok or do
> we want it to do something different?

Can't the size be obtained like any other BAR ?

Ben.