From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765839AbYB0Ace (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:32:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755249AbYB0AcZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:32:25 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:48355 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbYB0AcY (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:32:24 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=bkjmz7qTJBWUw/j8Rlz/f1bEv9pwipW2Eye0rNZBgmy2htj7B0C5egNPzZC+fM7qDxy0c8B6N2BHe5U+ME5ueBmJwi/zfwg4ihLDItCol2a8cLiIh6AN3s8/t03G37RY7ubHl4/pZNeci4olf+hEkZaatf74dPq6tXj2fSlkO6A= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:32:21 +0300 From: "Alexey Zaytsev" To: "Michael Buesch" Subject: Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch) Cc: "John W. Linville" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Alexey Zaytsev" , "Greg KH" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200802270127.22159.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47BEAF3B.3080809@protei.ru> <20080226224757.GB3100@tuxdriver.com> <200802270127.22159.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 01:23:17 Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:47 AM, John W. Linville > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:12:32AM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Besides that the bcm43xx driver is not broken. That's the whole reason > > > > > this damn thread started at all. So it can't be broken. > > > > > > > > > Can't agree here. The bcm43xx driver used to work with 2.6.23 without requiring > > > > any module magic. > > > > > > At the risk of prolonging things... :-( > > > > > > Isn't the fundamental problem here that the ssb driver claims the same > > > PCI IDs as the bcm43xx driver? He have hit this same issue a number > > > of times: 8139too vs. 8139cp, eepro vs. e100, sk98lin vs. skge, > > > and I'm sure there are more. I admit that this situation is a bit > > > more confusing, since the user is less likely to predict a conflict > > > between bcm43xx and the ssb driver. This is especially true since > > > the user isn't even selecting ssb directly, but is instead selecting > > > the apparently unrelated b44. > > > > > > Still, the bcm43xx driver is not fundamentally damaged. This is > > > fundamentally a "two drivers claiming the same PCI ID" issue, not a > > > "you broke my driver" one. > > > > Is there any reason the ssb driver should claim the bcm43xx pci ids in > > the first place? I have very little understanding what the Sonic Silicon > > Backplane really is, but I see that the b44 driver claims its PCI ids > > directly. I also think I understand why the b43/b43legacy drivers can't > > claim the ids directly: because the driver-device matching is done not > > with the pci bus methods, but with the ssb bus methods, and it would > > be impossible to automatically choose the right driver for the right > > device (with same ssb ids), as the first of the two drivers loaded would > > succeed in probe()'ing the pci "ssb bridge" device, and not letting the > > other to take control, even after moments later the ssb probe for the > > non-supported ssb device would fail. (Or am I completely wrong?) > > > > That said, I still think that the ssb driver claims the wrong pci ids, > > which is especially wrong if the the b43/b43legacy drivers are not > > even built. And my patch fixes exactly this problem - the ssb driver > > no more claims the broadcom pci ids, when the b43/b43legacy drivers > > are not built. > > > > One better solution I think might be to move the b43_pci_bridge.c > > code to a separate module, and let the b43/b43legacy drivers > > depend on it, but as I said, I have little knowledge in the > > ssb stuff, so I did it the easy way. > > See the comment in b43_pci_bridge.c > Yes, I've seen it. And this design, kind of, causes me some trouble. ^ > -- > Greetings Michael. >