From owner-freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 20:51:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C95916A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:51:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F306443D41 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:51:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from [192.168.4.250] (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1FKpEQe018658; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:51:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) In-Reply-To: <200502141539.48180.christian.kandeler@hob.de> References: <200502141539.48180.christian.kandeler@hob.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <28754338d201e097a39dc66ca67ef5a1@xcllnt.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:51:08 -0800 To: Christian Kandeler X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) cc: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FWSPA X-BeenThere: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the IA-64 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:51:10 -0000 On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Christian Kandeler wrote: > Hi, > > in the ia64_init() function, the fpswa is initialized as follows: > > fpswa_interface = > (FPSWA_INTERFACE*)IA64_PHYS_TO_RR7(bootinfo.bi_fpswa); > > Shouldn't it be tested here whether bootinfo.bi_fpswa is NULL? It > would make > the follwing test in cpu_startup() much more meaningful: > > if (fpswa_interface == NULL) > printf("Warning: no FPSWA package supplied\n"); > else > printf("FPSWA Revision = 0x%lx, Entry = %p\n", > (long)fpswa_interface->Revision, > (void *)fpswa_interface->Fpswa); > > As of now, this will always execute the else branch, because > bootinfo.bi_fpswa > was unconditionally or'ed with 7 << 61 and the result can therefore > not be > NULL. > Or am I missing something? No, you're absolutely right. Can you file a PR so that we don't forget about it? A patch would do as well ;-) Thanks, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net