The presence of the device has already been tested before, so testing it again for individual fields is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> --- If we really wanted to test individual fields, then "Device Not Present" wouldn't be the right thing to display anyway. If some of the fields are set, then the device must be present. I tested this change on my collection of DMI table dumps and it made no difference. This is a proposal, I will only commit this change if HPE is OK with it. dmioem.c | 16 ++++------------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) --- dmidecode.orig/dmioem.c +++ dmidecode/dmioem.c @@ -359,14 +359,6 @@ static void dmi_hp_203_assoc_hndl(const pr_attr(fname, "0x%04X", num); } -static void dmi_hp_203_pciinfo(const char *fname, u16 num) -{ - if (num == 0xFFFF) - pr_attr(fname, "Device Not Present"); - else - pr_attr(fname, "0x%04x", num); -} - static void dmi_hp_203_bayenc(const char *fname, u8 num) { switch (num) @@ -1293,10 +1285,10 @@ static int dmi_decode_hp(const struct dm } else { - dmi_hp_203_pciinfo("PCI Vendor ID", WORD(data + 0x08)); - dmi_hp_203_pciinfo("PCI Device ID", WORD(data + 0x0A)); - dmi_hp_203_pciinfo("PCI Sub Vendor ID", WORD(data + 0x0C)); - dmi_hp_203_pciinfo("PCI Sub Device ID", WORD(data + 0x0E)); + pr_attr("PCI Vendor ID", "0x%04x", WORD(data + 0x08)); + pr_attr("PCI Device ID", "0x%04x", WORD(data + 0x0A)); + pr_attr("PCI Sub Vendor ID", "0x%04x", WORD(data + 0x0C)); + pr_attr("PCI Sub Device ID", "0x%04x", WORD(data + 0x0E)); pr_attr("PCI Class Code", "0x%02x", data[0x10]); pr_attr("PCI Sub Class Code", "0x%02x", data[0x11]); } -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
