On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:44:16AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> On 04.02.2010 04:07, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 01:58:53AM +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> >
> >> On 29.01.2010 01:40, Michael Karcher wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- a/board_enable.c
> >>> +++ b/board_enable.c
> >>> @@ -1312,7 +1312,8 @@ static struct board_pciid_enable
> >>> *board_match_pci_card_ids(void)
> >>> struct board_pciid_enable *board = board_pciid_enables;
> >>>
> >>> for (; board->vendor_name; board++) {
> >>> - if (!board->first_card_vendor || !board->first_card_device)
> >>> + if (!board->first_card_vendor ||
> >>> + (!board->first_card_device && !board->dmi_pattern))
> >>> continue;
> >>>
> >>> if (!pci_card_find(board->first_vendor, board->first_device,
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This code still requires a nonzero subsystem vendor even if a DMI
> >> pattern is present. If that is intentional (I thought DMI would
> >> eliminate subsystem vendor+device requirement), the patch is
> >> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Carl-Daniel
> >>
> >
> > It probably should be an || there.
> >
>
> No, that would invert the logic and make DMI an absolute requirement for
> all boards.
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel
Yes, coin just dropped too reading your answer to stepan. :)
Luc Verhaegen.
_______________________________________________
flashrom mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
