On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:02:48 +0200
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 21 September 2015 at 18:20, Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:04:19 +0200
> > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> @@ -1464,6 +1463,12 @@ static int __init ssb_modinit(void)
> >> /* don't fail SSB init because of this */
> >> err = 0;
> >> }
> >> + err = ssb_host_pcmcia_init();
> >> + if (err) {
> >> + ssb_err("PCMCIA host initialization failed\n");
> >> + /* don't fail SSB init because of this */
> >
> > Why not? What's the point of not failing here?
>
> I just copied the logic from few lines above where we handle PCI init.
> I guess the point was to support other host devices even is PCI host
> registration fails.
Ah I misread it. This is at modinit time. That might make sense then.
> >> +static const struct pcmcia_device_id ssb_host_pcmcia_tbl[] = {
> >> + PCMCIA_DEVICE_MANF_CARD(0x2D0, 0x448),
> >> + PCMCIA_DEVICE_MANF_CARD(0x2D0, 0x476),
> >> + PCMCIA_DEVICE_NULL,
> >> +};
> >
> > This doesn't belong into ssb'c pcmcia.c, IMO.
> > It should be in a new file called b43_pcmcia_bridge.c, just like we have
> > b43_pci_bridge.c.
> > The bridge code technically (also for pci) doesn't belong into ssb. But
> > it makes kconfig simpler.
>
> This is something I don't understand. This PCI bridge was also always
> confusing me.
> Why do we want a separated file for that? What's wrong with having 1
> file for host (PCI/PCMCIA) driver (probe and remove functions) *and*
> ssb initialization?
Because that's not ssb code. These are device IDs for b43 devices.
We just keep it in ssb to make module handling easier.
Ssb also runs non-b43 devices.
Think of it like PCI IDs that belong into the driver and not the PCI
subsystem.
--
Michael
Attachment:
pgp04XAd8j_KS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
