Would the real 82801E_9 please stand up. (fwd)

Would the real 82801E_9 please stand up. (fwd)

[Adrian Bunk]

The issue described in Dave's mail below is still present:

2.4.21-pre5-ac1:
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x2459
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   0x245B


2.5.64-ac3:
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x245b
#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9


Jens:
The patch that did the
  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9
in 2.5 was sent by you, could you comment on this issue?

TIA
Adrian



----- Forwarded message from Dave Jones <davej@suse.de> -----

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:58:52 +0200
From: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Would the real 82801E_9 please stand up.

Whilst syncing 2.4.19rc1, I spotted this problem
in pci_ids.h

2.4..

#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x2459

2.5..

#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x245b

In a word.. eughhh

        Dave.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

----- End forwarded message -----

Re: Would the real 82801E_9 please stand up. (fwd)

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Mar 11 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The issue described in Dave's mail below is still present:
> 
> 2.4.21-pre5-ac1:
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x2459
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   0x245B
> 
> 
> 2.5.64-ac3:
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x245b
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9
> 
> 
> Jens:
> The patch that did the
>   #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9
> in 2.5 was sent by you, could you comment on this issue?

This was during the nasty 2.4-ac IDE merge I did in 2.5, so I wouldn't
trust that particular change completely. The 2.4.21-pre5-ac1 is most
likely the correct one.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Would the real 82801E_9 please stand up. (fwd)

[Andries Brouwer]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:29:45PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The issue described in Dave's mail below is still present:
> 
> 2.4.21-pre5-ac1:
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x2459
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   0x245B
> 
> 
> 2.5.64-ac3:
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9    0x245b
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11   PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9

The 82801E has seven device IDs:
B1:D8:F0	2459	Ethernet Controller 0
B1:D9:F0	245d	Ethernet Controller 1
 D30:F0		245e	PCI Hub
 D31:F0		2450	LPC I/F
 D31:F1		245b	IDE
 D31:F2		2452	USB
 D31:F3		2453	SMBus

Clearly, the 2.5.64 uses are for IDE and must be 0x245b.
PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9 does not occur in 2.5.64,
apart from its definition.

Conclusion: 2.4 is right.

--- /linux/2.5/linux-2.5.64/linux/include/linux/pci_ids.h       Wed Mar  5 10:47:31 2003
+++ /linux/2.5/linux-2.5.64a/linux/include/linux/pci_ids.h      Tue Mar 11 22:31:53 2003
@@ -1831,8 +1831,8 @@
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_0	0x2450
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_2	0x2452
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_3	0x2453
-#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9	0x245b
-#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11	PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9
+#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_9	0x2459
+#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_11	0x245b
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_13	0x245d
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801E_14	0x245e
 #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82801CA_0	0x2480

Andries