Yeah, I didn't go for any clean up. We *shouldn't* be adding
any more explicit prom rev. checks to the code because we
now have an interface to check for prom "features" - see
sn_prom_feature_available().
Unfortunately these checks were added before the interface
was available and therefore the checks have to stay.
I can still do some clean up if preferred.
-Aaron
>
> + if (is_shub1() && version <= 0x0209 && acpi_kbd_controller_present) {
> ...
> + if (is_shub1() && sn_sal_rev() < 0x0406) {
> ...
> + if (is_shub1() && sn_sal_rev() < SGI_HOTPLUG_PROM_REV) {
>
>
> Is it time to come up with a more elegant way of doing this? One
> place you have a define for the special revision, others you hard-wire
> the hex numbers. Possibly at some point in the future you might
> have some dividing line in prom revisions for shub2 systems, so
> if you continue in this path the tests will just get uglier.
>
> Maybe some inline functions that hide things:
>
> if (sn_sal_supports_fadt() && acpi_kbd_controller_present) {
>
> if (sn_sal_supports_tioca()) {
>
> if (sn_sal_support_hotplug()) {
>
> -Tony
> -
> : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|