Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:29:23 -0700 | From | Yinghai Lu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: tidy e820 output |
| |
On 09/22/2010 02:22 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 03:07:00 pm Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On 09/22/2010 12:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >>> -static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type) >>> +static char * __init e820_type_name(u32 type) >>> { >>> switch (type) { >>> case E820_RAM: >>> case E820_RESERVED_KERN: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "(usable)"); >>> - break; >>> + return "usable"; >>> case E820_RESERVED: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "(reserved)"); >>> - break; >>> + return "reserved"; >>> case E820_ACPI: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI data)"); >>> - break; >>> + return "ACPI data"; >>> case E820_NVS: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI NVS)"); >>> - break; >>> + return "ACPI NVS"; >>> case E820_UNUSABLE: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "(unusable)"); >>> - break; >>> - default: >>> - printk(KERN_CONT "type %u", type); >>> - break; >>> + return "unusable"; >>> } >>> + return "(unknown)"; >>> } >> >> type value? > > I decided the code simplification was worth skipping the type. > I'd certainly rather have the type value, too, but I don't know > how much hassle to go through to debug a firmware problem. How > important do you think it is?
I have some systems with "type 9".
Yinghai
| |