Re: [RFC][PATCH] Realtek 8187B wireless support with product id 0x8197/0x8189

[Hin-Tak Leung <hintak_leung@yahoo.co.uk>]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 13:33 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> 
>> Do I understand correctly that it might be better to check for the 
>> existence of endpoint 02 for an 8187 device? Or would it be better to 
>> look for endpoint 12 to set it as an 8187B?
> 
> It's probably OK either way, but I would look at some number that takes
> more than just 2 values (true and false).  Say, the number of endpoints
> would be such number.  This way, it there is some elusive 8187A or
> 8187C, it may have a different number and won't be mistaken for known
> chipsets.
> 
> Of course, we cannot guarantee anything.  It's just a matter of general
> sanity that may or may not help.  But sometimes it helps.

Larry's 8187 indeed looks like a 8187B i.e. the OEM being naughty and needs
some serious lashing there... where does it come from - what brand and what
is it bundled with?

The 8187/8187b code actually *uses* the
endpoints to send management frames for association - that's a functional 
difference and it is not possible to drive a 8187 as if it is a 8187b or
vice versa. In the absence of
more authoritative answers like reading from a register or something, counting
the endpoints - I would actually go a bit further and demand the used endpoints
being there and in the right direction and propertes (int/bulk) - would seem
to be a good idea. As for what to do "if things don't add up", at least a 
warning through dmesg "give the OEM some lashing for calling a 8187b 0x8187".

I think Larry's question could be re-phrased as: if there is a preculiar device
with *both* end point 2 and endpoint 12, what to treat it as?

I would be inclined to treat it as the newer chip - but some big warning, or
even refusing to carry on, is probably in order.

Herton's code also seem to distinguish revC/revD/revE of different 8187B's -
I don't seem to have seen those distinctions in the original vendor code, but
maybe I haven't look hard enough :-).