Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:06:57 -0700 From: Ravi Pokala <rpokala@freebsd.org> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "<dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org>" <dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org>, <dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 454630c72556 - main - stand: libefi: swap /Pci() printing around Message-ID: <12E7AA6A-F14E-4A34-9807-467A5D1CD251@panasas.com> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaFM7KW=BTCfr3t9LN9W_O2a9tenCX2_tTxedP-K-vKwwA@mail.gmail.com> References: <202204130034.23D0YCPN051666@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <0B5546D3-3623-4348-9AAF-A0AC0E3ACBFC@panasas.com> <CACNAnaFM7KW=BTCfr3t9LN9W_O2a9tenCX2_tTxedP-K-vKwwA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>
Date: 2022-04-12, Tuesday at 18:04
To: Ravi Pokala <rpokala@freebsd.org>
Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "<dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org>" <dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org>, <dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: 454630c72556 - main - stand: libefi: swap /Pci() printing around
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 7:57 PM Ravi Pokala <rpokala@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <owner-src-committers@freebsd.org> on behalf of Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
> Date: 2022-04-12, Tuesday at 17:34
> To: <src-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <dev-commits-src-all@FreeBSD.org>, <dev-commits-src-main@FreeBSD.org>
> Subject: git: 454630c72556 - main - stand: libefi: swap /Pci() printing around
>
> The branch main has been updated by kevans:
>
> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=454630c72556d45e401f29f56b3317c2fb0499a0
>
> commit 454630c72556d45e401f29f56b3317c2fb0499a0
> Author: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
> AuthorDate: 2022-04-13 00:29:54 +0000
> Commit: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
> CommitDate: 2022-04-13 00:30:30 +0000
>
> stand: libefi: swap /Pci() printing around
>
> Printing device followed by interface matches, e.g., edk2. Note that
> this is only a fallback, many firmware implementations will provide the
> protocol that we'll use to format device paths.
>
> "(device,function)" makes more sense anyway, since that's the logical organization (i.e. each unique device may have multiple functions).
>
> What was the rationale for doing "(function,device)" in the first place?
>
Based on tsoome's reaction when I pointed it out, the rationale was "whoops" :-)
That's a perfectly valid rationale! ;-)
-Ravi (rpokala@)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?12E7AA6A-F14E-4A34-9807-467A5D1CD251>