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.
d9d628b000