On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 08:50:19AM +0100, Sven Peter wrote: > > On 4. Jan 2024, at 08:47, Aditya Garg <gargaditya08@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 28-Dec-2023, at 5:41 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ok, good, then this patch and the one I posted are mostly equivalent > >> assuming that the BCM4378/4387 return an invalid address during setup. > >> > >> This patch may be preferred as it does not need to rely on such > >> assumptions, though. > > So what's the final take on this? Which one is gonna be merged upstream? > > I would’ve preferred this one (possibly with a better commit message) > since it’s more explicit and doesn’t rely on additional assumptions > but it looks like Johan’s version was already merged. Which addresses do BCM4378/4387 return before they are configured? Should be easy enough to verify that the current check for invalid addresses catches those or otherwise add them to the list. Johan
