On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:06 AM Alan Cooper <alcooperx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This driver was written for a PCI FPGA development board used to > verify the controller logic and to help with driver development before > adding the logic to our SoC's. I'm not sure why the driver was pushed > upstream but I'd like to remove it. I'm checking with a few other > groups to make sure I'm not missing anything. That would solve my problem. Is removing a driver acceptable for stable submission? If not, it would be helpful to have a patch suitable for stable that disables the driver before removal. I'm somewhat tired of explaining to people how to blacklist bdc. > > Thanks > Al > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:02 PM Patrik Jakobsson > <patrik.r.jakobsson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:34:01PM +0100, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: > > > > Hi Al, > > > > The PCI device ID of 0x1570 in the bdc driver (bdc_pci.c) is > > > > conflicting with the Apple FacetimeHD webcam [1]. Is this caused by an > > > > incorrect ID in the bdc driver or are there actually two devices with > > > > the same ID in the wild? If we have a real conflict, how would we go > > > > about solving this? > > > > > > Looks like someone at broadcom messed up :( > > > > > > Can you look for any other fields in the device other than just the > > > vendor/device ids to verify that this really is a webcam so you can not > > > bind to the same thing this driver wants to bind to? > > > > Right, we could check the class. But I suppose it must be fixed in > > both drivers? bdc must not bind to the webcam and facetimehd must not > > bind to the UDC. So which class is bdc reporting? > > PCI_CLASS_SERIAL_USB_DEVICE? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h
