Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:44:25 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: markmc@dataabstractsolutions.com, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: disable 64-bit dma for one PCI slot only? Message-ID: <7C636476-7D0A-45C6-8127-A423D9170D0E@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <201107190931.36492.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4E20BA23.13717.66C6F57@markmcconnell.iinet.com> <201107181714.07827.jhb@freebsd.org> <4F739848-E3CE-4E2C-A91E-90F33410E7AC@samsco.org> <201107190931.36492.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 19, 2011, at 7:31 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>=20 >> If we're going to change it, might as well break it down into 4 = fields. Maybe >> we retain the old format under a legacy switch and/or env variable = for users >> that have tools that parse the output (cough yahoo cough). >=20 > The only reason it might be nice to stick with two fields is due to = the line > length (though the first line is over 80 cols even in the current = format). Here > are two possible suggestions: >=20 I like A for the explicitness, but B is a bit easier to read on an 80 = column display. There's no 'verbose' flag for pciconf, and the '-v' = flag has already been claimed for another use; if a verbose flag were to = appear, I'd suggest hiding the rev and hdr fields under it and otherwise = shortening the line. However, it's not my bikeshed to paint, and I'll = be thrilled with either option A or B or anything in between. > I went with vendor word first for both A) and B) as in my experience = that is > the more common ordering in driver tables, etc. >=20 Indeed. Thanks a lot for working on this. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7C636476-7D0A-45C6-8127-A423D9170D0E>