The device code had several unclear messages, leading to

confusion when analyzing the logs. Improve readability.

This code may be obsolete, but that's not entriely sure yet.

Signed-off-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net>
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net>


git-svn-id: svn://coreboot.org/repository/coreboot-v3@759 f3766cd6-281f-0410-b1cd-43a5c92072e9
This commit is contained in:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger 2008-08-14 01:40:31 +00:00
commit 3cff5b912d
2 changed files with 7 additions and 5 deletions

View file

@ -580,10 +580,11 @@ unsigned int hypertransport_scan_chain(struct bus *bus, unsigned int min_devfn,
*/
if (old_devices) {
struct device *left;
printk(BIOS_INFO, "HT: Left over static devices:\n");
for (left = old_devices; left; left = left->sibling) {
printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s\n", dev_path(left));
printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s\n", dev_path(left));
}
printk(BIOS_ERR, "HT: Left over static devices.\n");
printk(BIOS_INFO, "HT: End of leftover list.\n");
/* Put back the left over static device, and let
* pci_scan_bus() disable it.
*/

View file

@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static struct device *pci_scan_get_dev(struct device **list, unsigned int devfn)
dev = 0;
printk(BIOS_SPEW, "%s: list is %p, *list is %p\n", __func__, list,
*list);
for (/* */; *list; list = &(*list)->sibling) {
for (; *list; list = &(*list)->sibling) {
printk(BIOS_SPEW, "%s: check dev %s \n", __func__,
(*list)->dtsname);
if ((*list)->path.type != DEVICE_PATH_PCI) {
@ -1122,10 +1122,11 @@ unsigned int pci_scan_bus(struct bus *bus, unsigned int min_devfn,
*/
if (old_devices) {
struct device *left;
printk(BIOS_INFO, "PCI: Left over static devices:\n");
for (left = old_devices; left; left = left->sibling) {
printk(BIOS_SPEW, "%s\n", left->dtsname);
printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s\n", left->dtsname);
}
banner(BIOS_SPEW, "PCI: Left over static devices.\n");
printk(BIOS_INFO, "PCI: End of leftover list.\n");
}
/* For all children that implement scan_bus() (i.e. bridges)