[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <534881DB.40901@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:59:23 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>, x86@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org, olaf@...fle.de, apw@...onical.com,
jasowang@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, JBeulich@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/1] X86: Probe for PIC and set legacy_pic appropriately
On 04/11/2014 05:50 PM, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
>
> + /*
> + * Check to see if we have a PIC.
> + * Mask all except the cascade and read
> + * back the value we just wrote. If we don't
> + * have a PIC, we will read 0xff as opposed to the
> + * value we wrote.
> + */
> + outb(probe_val, PIC_MASTER_IMR);
> + probe_val = inb(PIC_MASTER_IMR);
> + if (probe_val == 0xff) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "Using NULL legacy PIC\n");
> + legacy_pic = &null_legacy_pic;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i8259A_lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> outb(0xff, PIC_MASTER_IMR); /* mask all of 8259A-1 */
> outb(0xff, PIC_SLAVE_IMR); /* mask all of 8259A-2 */
>
Again, I would do at least the slave masking above the probe.
Also, I would compare to make sure we get the probe_val back and compare
with != instead of comparing with ==.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists