2014/1/3 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2014/1/2 Cody P Schafer <devel@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 2014/1/2 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> From: Cody P Schafer <devel@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Add a few Belkin F7Dxxxx entries, with F7D4401 sourced from online >>>> documentation and the "F7D7302" being observed. F7D3301, F7D3302, and >>>> F7D4302 are reasonable guesses which are unlikely to cause >>>> mis-detection. >>>> >>>> It also appears that at least the F7D3302, F7D3301, F7D7301, and F7D7302 >>>> have a shared boardtype and boardrev, so use that as a fallback to a >>>> "generic" F7Dxxxx board. >>> >>> Cody, Hauke: I'm starring at this patch for 10 minutes now and it's >>> still unclear for me. >>> >>> You say 3301, 3302, 7301 and 7302 have the same board_* entries >>> stating they can be treated with a generic ID entry. >> >> I included the generic BCM47XX_BOARD_BELKIN_F7DXXXX entry to catch >> those boards that we don't yet have specific entries for. It allows us >> to get the leds and buttons working mostly correctly. >> >> The specific names are included so that one can determine a more exact >> board. The stock CFE requires different images for different boards >> even though they are very similar. Hardware variations are simply >> gigabit vs 100MB switches, usb port population, led population, and >> 5Ghz radio population (none of which truly require the greater detail >> in board type). > > OK, maybe this is sth I'm missing... Why we should care about CFE in > kernel? We don't talk with CFE, do we? So we don't have to know which > device's CFE is that. Also: are the CFEs in 3302 and 7302 identical? Because you use BCM47XX_BOARD_BELKIN_F7D3302 for both of them. I'd prefer to see BCM47XX_BOARD_BELKIN_F7DX302, or maybe even better: two separated entries that can be combined in leds.c and buttons.c. -- Rafał
