[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240626085236.62e61723@bootlin.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:52:36 +0200
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
To: Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Sai Krishna
Gajula <saikrishnag@...vell.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo
Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd@...db.de>, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner
Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, "Bjorn Helgaas"
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "Lars
Povlsen" <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Daniel Machon
<daniel.machon@...rochip.com>, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "Allan
Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>, Luca Ceresoli
<luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] mfd: Add support for LAN966x PCI device
Hi Steen, Bjorn, Andy,
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 13:46:32 +0200
Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com> wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> I am not sure what went wrong here.
>
> I have seen that lspci lists 'Microchip / SMSC' for the 0x1055 Vendor
> ID value and as mentioned previously there has been a number of
> aquicisions over the years, so that the ID has been absorbed but not
> necessarily re-registered.
>
> Anyway I have started an investigation, so we can determine what
> up/down in this.
>
> I agree that for now this will have to be PCI_VENDOR_ID_EFAR, and I
> will return with an update as soon as I know more.
>
Right, PCI_VENDOR_ID_EFAR will be directly used in the next iteration.
Best regards,
Hervé
Powered by blists - more mailing lists