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
![]() |