correctly. It has the following code:
if (class != PCIC_BRIDGE || subclass != PCIS_BRIDGE_HOST)
return NULL;
My 486 has an Integrated Micro Solutions PCI bridge which identifies
itself as subclass PCIS_BRIDGE_OTHER, not PCIS_BRIDGE_HOST. Consequently,
it gets ignored. In my opinion, the correct test should be:
if ((class != PCIC_BRIDGE) && (subclass != PCIS_BRIDGE_HOST))
return NULL;
That way the test still succeeds because the chip's class is PCIC_BRIDGE.
Clearly it's not reasonable to expect all host to PCI bridges to always
have a subclass of PCIS_BRIDGE_HOST since I've got one that doesn't.
This way the sanity test should remain relatively sane while still allowing
some oddball yet correct hardware to work. If somebody has a better way
to do it, go ahead and tweak the test, but be aware that
class == PCIC_BRIDGE and subclass == PCIS_BRIDGE_OTHER is a valid case.
While I was here, I also added an explicit ID string for the IMS chipset.
I also dealt with a minor style nit: it's bad karma not to have a default
case for your switch statements, but the one in this routine doesn't have
one. The default string of "Host to PCI bridge" is now assigned in a
default case of the switch statement instead of initializing "s" with the
string before the switch and then not having any default case.
Isn't really that useful.
chip0: <PCI to Other bridge (vendor=10e0 device=8849)> at device 0.0 on pci0
is more in keeping with the spirit of the rest of the code.
Previous behavior with regard to truely unknown bridges unchanged.
"<Anti-Bill> Tell you what: you have commit privs now. You do it."
Config(8) contains no documentation about this.
Fix the help for the PnP irq and drq commands. This one caused
me a bit of head scratching the other night while trying to get
a problematic PnP device configured properly.
we create the pty on the fly when it is first opened.
If you run out of ptys now, just MAKEDEV some more.
This also demonstrate the use of dev_t->si_tty_tty and dev_t->si_drv1
in a device driver.
- %q -> %ll.
Fixed nearby errors not reported by gcc -Wformat on i386's:
- don't assume that the promotion of [u_]int64_t is [u_]quad_t.
- don't use signed formats for unsigned args.
