On Fri, Mar 16, Michael Brown wrote:
> On Friday 16 Mar 2012 13:43:10 Olaf Hering wrote:
> > --- ipxe.orig/src/drivers/bus/isa.c
> > +++ ipxe/src/drivers/bus/isa.c
> > @@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static int isabus_probe ( struct root_de
> > int ioidx;
> > int rc;
> >
> > + if ( ISA_EXTRA_PROBE_ADDR_COUNT == 0 )
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > for_each_table_entry ( driver, ISA_DRIVERS ) {
> > for ( ioidx = ISA_IOIDX_MIN ( driver ) ;
> > ioidx <= ISA_IOIDX_MAX ( driver ) ; ioidx++ ) {
>
> This change would cause isabus_probe() to fail to use the driver's own built-
> in probe list unless some additional probe addresses were also specified via
> ISA_PROBE_ADDRS, which would be incorrect behaviour.
>
> The intended behaviour is that if ISA_PROBE_ADDRS is not defined, then
> isabus_probe() should just use the driver's own probe list. Any additional
> addresses specified in ISA_PROBE_ADDRS should be tried before those in the
> driver's own list.
How would you fix the code in case the array is empty because
ISA_PROBE_ADDRS is not defined?
Olaf
_______________________________________________
ipxe-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ipxe.org/mailman/listinfo/ipxe-devel
