From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: zajec5@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?=)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 19:20:18 +0200
Subject: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai,
	axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus driver
In-Reply-To: <4DC57B81.6030705@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>
	<BANLkTi=GJs=04H=HpCDy_o1JnhY4+aPgxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DC57B81.6030705@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikEGGSsm1ZFcT4Y9AOijSRAZfa7oQ@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 06:49 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, if ChipCommon is Broadcom core and SuperPCIeX is ARM core (or some
> other). The core identifiers are chosen by a chip manufacturer (eg. Broadcom
> ;-) ). They are not unique by itself so that is why the bcma_device_id
> consists of manufacturer, id, rev, and class. Providing a device table with
> ANY_MANUF would be a bad idea.

OK, we use MANUF in identification... so where is the problem? ;)

My testing patch for b43 "subscribes" for Broadcom's cores only:
static const struct bcma_device_id b43_bcma_tbl[] = {
	BCMA_CORE(BCMA_MANUF_BCM, BCMA_CORE_80211, 0x17, BCMA_ANY_CLASS),
	BCMA_CORE(BCMA_MANUF_BCM, BCMA_CORE_80211, 0x18, BCMA_ANY_CLASS),
	BCMA_CORETABLE_END
};

-- 
Rafa?