On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:40:29AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 08:30 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > Thanks for the review Simon. Is the patch below more like what > > > you're thinking? I agree that check_bugs doesn't initial seem like the > > > most appropriate place to setup DMI, but think about what DMI is > > > typically used for in the kernel. > > > > Then re-name check_bugs() to something more suited to the things that > > it is now doing. [I think that was what Simon was hinting at]. > > Re-naming check_bugs() becomes a cross architecture endeavor. Since > x86 calls dmi_scan_machine() in setup_arch(), this would only be for > ia64. Perhaps the right answer is to make dmi_scan_machine() callable > from setup_arch() on ia64, but that requires an safer early ioremap, and > I'm still not sure what that should look like. Thanks, Yes, that does seem like a fairly substantial can of worms. -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ - To unsubscribe from this list: 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
|