On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:53:57PM +0200, Stefan Eer wrote: > On 2007-10-01 14:20 -0400, John Baldwin <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Monday 01 October 2007 09:25:48 am Marius Strobl wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:49:12PM +0200, Stefan Esser wrote: > > > > Well, since it was me who chose to parse it that way, when pciconf > > > > saw the light of day, I can say that the logical extension appears > > > > to be the support of 3 formats for the PCI device selector: > > > > > > > > pci1:2:3:4 (full, domain/bus/slot/function, required if domain!=0) > > > > pci2:3:4 (abridged, in case the domain is "0") > > > > pci2:3 (abridged, in case the domain and function are "0") > > > > > > I'm ok with what you propose, I'd wait for John to comment > > > whether he sees any issues regarding the hints feature he is > > > working on though. > > > > This sounds good to me. > > Ok, I've tested the following patch, which also restores a feature > of the original code, when it was not clear, whether the separator > character was supposed to be ":" or "." (i.e., the new version does > accept both ":" and "." as separator). This would allow to use the > same selectors (with ".") in pciconf and the hints file ... > > I'd of course be willing to commit both changes separately (first > the parsing of selectors with 2, 3 or 4 elements, then equivalence > of ":" and "." as separators). > > The code wrapped in "#if 0" is not to be committed, I've included > it just in case anybody wants to perform some tests and to check > the parsing results. > > Regards, STefan > > > > Index: usr.sbin/pciconf/pciconf.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/usr.sbin/pciconf/pciconf.c,v > retrieving revision 1.28 > diff -u -3 -r1.28 pciconf.c > --- usr.sbin/pciconf/pciconf.c 30 Sep 2007 11:05:17 -0000 1.28 > +++ usr.sbin/pciconf/pciconf.c 3 Oct 2007 10:33:03 -0000 > _at__at_ -486,6 +486,8 _at__at_ > char *ep = strchr(str, '_at_'); > char *epbase; > struct pcisel sel; > + u_int8_t selarr[4]; > + int i; > Generally looks good. Note that the domain in theory can be a 32-bit value (chosen based on what the old alpha hose code used; Linux seems to limit it to 16-bit) though. MariusReceived on Wed Oct 03 2007 - 11:18:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC