[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikEGGSsm1ZFcT4Y9AOijSRAZfa7oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 19:20:18 +0200
From: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>
Cc: Michael Büsch <m@...s.ch>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
"b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org" <b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Michael Büsch <mb@...sch.de>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
George Kashperko <george@...u.edu.ua>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Andy Botting <andy@...ybotting.com>,
linuxdriverproject <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai,axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus driver
2011/5/7 Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>:
> On 05/07/2011 06:49 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> 2011/5/7 Arend van Spriel<arend@...adcom.com>:
>>>
>>> On 05/07/2011 03:55 PM, Michael Büsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Arnd: did you have a look at defines at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the defines have values in range 0x800 → 0x837. Converting
>>>>> this to array means loosing 0x800 u16 entries. We can not use 0x800
>>>>> offset, because there are also some defined between 0x000 and 0x800:
>>>>> #define BCMA_CORE_OOB_ROUTER 0x367 /* Out of band */
>>>>> #define BCMA_CORE_INVALID 0x700
>>>
>>> Please be aware that the core identifier itself is not unique (in the
>>> current list they are). In the scan the BCMA_CORE_OOB_ROUTER will always
>>> show BCMA_MANUF_ARM (did not look up the proper manufacturer define but
>>> you
>>> get the idea, i hope).
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't. Could you explain this? How core identified
>> can be not unique? Can 0x800 mean ChipCommon but also SuperPCIeX?
>
> Yes, if ChipCommon is Broadcom core and SuperPCIeX is ARM core (or some
> other). The core identifiers are chosen by a chip manufacturer (eg. Broadcom
> ;-) ). They are not unique by itself so that is why the bcma_device_id
> consists of manufacturer, id, rev, and class. Providing a device table with
> ANY_MANUF would be a bad idea.
OK, we use MANUF in identification... so where is the problem? ;)
My testing patch for b43 "subscribes" for Broadcom's cores only:
static const struct bcma_device_id b43_bcma_tbl[] = {
BCMA_CORE(BCMA_MANUF_BCM, BCMA_CORE_80211, 0x17, BCMA_ANY_CLASS),
BCMA_CORE(BCMA_MANUF_BCM, BCMA_CORE_80211, 0x18, BCMA_ANY_CLASS),
BCMA_CORETABLE_END
};
--
Rafał
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists