Comment 27 for bug 28925

Created an attachment (id=5567)
example patch

A nice function, that is. Anyway, the attached example patch let's the radeon
driver do it job for me.

In the first part, if it's looking for Mach64's, is that kind of using of
ATIChipID a completely wrong thing to do? Without it, the code dwells into that
part of the code and yields "PCI Mach64 (...) could not be detected".

The second part is of course just a hack, but combined with the previous part:
is that pVideo->size[1] supposed to be some completely trustworthy thing to say
if a chip is a Mach64 (if FALSE) or something else (if TRUE)? Because in first
part it's false with my card, the code dwells into Mach64 code, and in the
second part the whole "look for block I/O devices"-code is skipped because of
!pVideo->size[1]?

I first used only the first part of the patch, and noticed that then it skipped
Mach64 code but also skipped block I/O devices code and found nothing.