2011/5/7 Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 05/07/2011 06:49 PM, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>>
>> 2011/5/7 Arend van Spriel<arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> On 05/07/2011 03:55 PM, Michael BÃsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Arnd: did you have a look at defines at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the defines have values in range 0x800 â 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 Â Â Â Â Â 0x367 Â /* Out of band */
>>>>> #define BCMA_CORE_INVALID Â Â Â Â Â Â Â0x700
>>>
>>> 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
};
--
RafaÅ
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
