Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:11:16 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 95068 for review Message-ID: <014B1689-1A9A-4AC3-BE76-AF8E35FF0A9C@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <200604121202.29736.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200604121450.k3CEoUJh071640@repoman.freebsd.org> <200604121202.29736.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 12, 2006, at 9:02 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 12 April 2006 10:50, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=95068 >> >> Change 95068 by marcel@marcel_nfs on 2006/04/12 14:49:30 >> >> Replace the rmask and rval arrays with vendor, device, subvendor >> and subdevice variables. When subvendor is 0xffff, don't test the >> subvendor and subdevice values. This strips 24 bytes from the >> description. >> While here, sort the list on vendor, device, subvendor and >> subdevice. > > I guess you expanded any entries that were using masks other than > 0xffff? (I think there were only a handful if any). Not yet. I looked at the latest pucdata.c in NetBSD and more entries with masks other than 0xffff have been added. While the handful we had looked like mistakes (was 0xfffc, should probably be 0xfffe), the new ones don't. I need to investigate, because if the mask is used as a quick and dirty way to add multiple boards with a single entry then I'm not sure it's a good thing. For different boards, different descriptions are better. In that case I will expand. Otherwise I may end up bringing back the mask. The entries in question have a /* MASK */ comment as a reminder. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?014B1689-1A9A-4AC3-BE76-AF8E35FF0A9C>