[coreboot] Extra pairs of eyes
Myles Watson
mylesgw at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 04:47:50 CEST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ron minnich [mailto:rminnich at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:29 PM
> To: Myles Watson
> Cc: Coreboot
> Subject: Re: Extra pairs of eyes
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Myles Watson <mylesgw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm tired of staring at this piece of code wondering why printk isn't
> > working as I expected. Can someone point out what I've obviously
> missed?
> >
> > code (inserted in pci_device.c in pci_get_resource() right before the
> limit
> > mask and return):
> > if (resource->flags)
> > {
> > printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s resource base %08lx limit %08lx size %08lx
> flags
> > %08lx\n",
> > dev_path(dev), resource->base, resource->limit,
> > resource->size, resource->flags);
>
> typedef u64 resource_t;
> struct resource {
> resource_t base; /* Base address of the resource */
> resource_t size; /* Size of the resource */
> resource_t limit; /* Largest valid value base + size -1 */
> unsigned long flags; /* Descriptions of the kind of resource */
> unsigned long index; /* Bus specific per device resource id */
> unsigned char align; /* Required alignment (log 2) of the
> resource */
> unsigned char gran; /* Granularity (log 2) of the resource */
> /* Alignment must be >= the granularity of the resource */
> };
>
> Look at the type of resource_t. 64 bits.
> Your printk is printing 64-bit fields as 32 bits. Things are going to
> get very confused.
>
> A common problem.
Should I go through and make all the resource holders resource_t instead of
unsigned long? They're mixed right now.
I was expecting that my 64-bit values would lose their upper bits, but I
wasn't expecting what I got.
Thanks,
Myles
More information about the coreboot
mailing list