Re: Conflicting PCI ID in bdc driver

Patrik Jakobsson
2021-01-12T08:43:55Z

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:06 AM Alan Cooper <alcooperx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This driver was written for a PCI FPGA development board used to
> verify the controller logic and to help with driver development before
> adding the logic to our SoC's. I'm not sure why the driver was pushed
> upstream but I'd like to remove it. I'm checking with a few other
> groups to make sure I'm not missing anything.

That would solve my problem. Is removing a driver acceptable for
stable submission? If not, it would be helpful to have a patch
suitable for stable that disables the driver before removal. I'm
somewhat tired of explaining to people how to blacklist bdc.

>
> Thanks
> Al
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:02 PM Patrik Jakobsson
> <patrik.r.jakobsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:34:01PM +0100, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
> > > > Hi Al,
> > > > The PCI device ID of 0x1570 in the bdc driver (bdc_pci.c) is
> > > > conflicting with the Apple FacetimeHD webcam [1]. Is this caused by an
> > > > incorrect ID in the bdc driver or are there actually two devices with
> > > > the same ID in the wild? If we have a real conflict, how would we go
> > > > about solving this?
> > >
> > > Looks like someone at broadcom messed up :(
> > >
> > > Can you look for any other fields in the device other than just the
> > > vendor/device ids to verify that this really is a webcam so you can not
> > > bind to the same thing this driver wants to bind to?
> >
> > Right, we could check the class. But I suppose it must be fixed in
> > both drivers? bdc must not bind to the webcam and facetimehd must not
> > bind to the UDC. So which class is bdc reporting?
> > PCI_CLASS_SERIAL_USB_DEVICE?
> >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h