Re: Tiger oops in ia64_sal_physical_id_info (was [RFC] regression:113134fcbca83619be4c68d0ca66db6093777b5d)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:02PM -0600, Russ Anderson wrote:
> > +	if (ia64_platform_is("sn2")
> > +		&& (sal_revision == SAL_VERSION_CODE(2, 9))
> > +		&& (sal_version == SAL_VERSION_CODE(1, 90)))
> 
> The sal_version check should be removed.  The revision has been
> stuck at 2.9 but the version has been changing.

What would the right values be for a, b, c, d, e, f to make this work?

	if (ia64_platform_is("sn2") &&
	    sal_revision <= SAL_VERSION_CODE(3, 2)) {
		if (sal_version >= SAL_VERSION_CODE(a, b))
			sal_revision = SAL_VERSION_CODE(3, 2);
		else if (sal_version >= SAL_VERSION_CODE(c, d))
			sal_revision = SAL_VERSION_CODE(3, 1);
		else if (sal_version >= SAL_VERSION_CODE(e, f))
			sal_revision = SAL_VERSION_CODE(3, 0);
	}

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Sparc Linux]     [DCCP]     [Linux ARM]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux for Ham Radio]

  Powered by Linux