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

Jon Smirl
2005-02-18T16:50:51Z

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:09:14 +0100, Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es> wrote:
> For example if it declares 128k, compare the two halves, reduce
> to 64k if equal. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>
> It's equivalent to reading the BAR declared size twice in
> the worst case, so it's not that bad performance-wise.
>
> That would only be in the case of an unknown signature
> in the first bytes, otherwise the third byte gives you
> the size IIUC.

The third byte size is wrong in too many cards to be useful. I have
always found the size in the PCIR header to be accurate.

>
> Gabriel
>

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com