From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: zajec5@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?=)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 18:49:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai,
	axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus driver
In-Reply-To: <4DC57383.3050903@broadcom.com>
References: <1304632783-8781-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com>
	<201105061605.31625.arnd@arndb.de>
	<BANLkTikjr0ZTNOu69F+iKhwufE9KKMg4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimGBNT4FkS4mO9ToLWft0bCEYcEgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1304776555.16344.2.camel@maggie> <4DC57383.3050903@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GJs=04H=HpCDy_o1JnhY4+aPgxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

2011/5/7 Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>:
> On 05/07/2011 03:55 PM, Michael B?sch wrote:
>>
>>> Arnd: did you have a look at defines at all?
>>>
>>> Most of the defines have values in range 0x800 ? 0x837. Converting
>>> this to array means loosing 0x800 u16 entries. We can not use 0x800
>>> offset, because there are also some defined between 0x000 and 0x800:
>>> #define BCMA_CORE_OOB_ROUTER ? ? ? ? ? 0x367 ? /* Out of band */
>>> #define BCMA_CORE_INVALID ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x700
>
> Please be aware that the core identifier itself is not unique (in the
> current list they are). In the scan the BCMA_CORE_OOB_ROUTER will always
> show BCMA_MANUF_ARM (did not look up the proper manufacturer define but you
> get the idea, i hope).

Unfortunately, I don't. Could you explain this? How core identified
can be not unique? Can 0x800 mean ChipCommon but also SuperPCIeX?

-- 
Rafa?