From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 80-190-117-144.ip-home.de ([80.190.117.144]:32931 "EHLO bues.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753441Ab1EHBsZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2011 21:48:25 -0400 Subject: Re: ssb: where to reject dangling cores? From: Michael =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCsch?= To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Michael Buesch , b43-dev In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 03:48:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1304819302.21680.10.camel@maggie> (sfid-20110508_034828_034939_C4E424C0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 22:40 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Michael, I can see code for ignoring dangling cores in both: ssb and b43. > > In ssb it's quite common, we have: > 1) we_support_multiple_80211_cores for 80211 > 2) inline checks in ssb_bus_scan for PCI(E) > 3) inline check in ssb_bus_scan for ETHERNET > > However there is also check in b43 at the beginning of b43_one_core_attach: > if (!pdev || > ((pdev->device != 0x4321) && > (pdev->device != 0x4313) && (pdev->device != 0x431A))) { > b43dbg(wl, "Ignoring unconnected 802.11 core\n"); > return -ENODEV; > } > > Should I move this check into ssb? Well, I'm not sure. _Neither_ place looks fine. It's a dirty workaround for broken hardware. If you really want to touch this mess, then yes. Move it into ssb. -- Greetings Michael.