Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)

Alexey Zaytsev
2008-02-27T00:32:34Z

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 27 February 2008 01:23:17 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:47 AM, John W. Linville
> > <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:12:32AM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Besides that the bcm43xx driver is not broken. That's the whole reason
> > > > > this damn thread started at all. So it can't be broken.
> > > > >
> > > > Can't agree here. The bcm43xx driver used to work with 2.6.23 without requiring
> > > > any module magic.
> > >
> > > At the risk of prolonging things... :-(
> > >
> > > Isn't the fundamental problem here that the ssb driver claims the same
> > > PCI IDs as the bcm43xx driver? He have hit this same issue a number
> > > of times: 8139too vs. 8139cp, eepro vs. e100, sk98lin vs. skge,
> > > and I'm sure there are more. I admit that this situation is a bit
> > > more confusing, since the user is less likely to predict a conflict
> > > between bcm43xx and the ssb driver. This is especially true since
> > > the user isn't even selecting ssb directly, but is instead selecting
> > > the apparently unrelated b44.
> > >
> > > Still, the bcm43xx driver is not fundamentally damaged. This is
> > > fundamentally a "two drivers claiming the same PCI ID" issue, not a
> > > "you broke my driver" one.
> >
> > Is there any reason the ssb driver should claim the bcm43xx pci ids in
> > the first place? I have very little understanding what the Sonic Silicon
> > Backplane really is, but I see that the b44 driver claims its PCI ids
> > directly. I also think I understand why the b43/b43legacy drivers can't
> > claim the ids directly: because the driver-device matching is done not
> > with the pci bus methods, but with the ssb bus methods, and it would
> > be impossible to automatically choose the right driver for the right
> > device (with same ssb ids), as the first of the two drivers loaded would
> > succeed in probe()'ing the pci "ssb bridge" device, and not letting the
> > other to take control, even after moments later the ssb probe for the
> > non-supported ssb device would fail. (Or am I completely wrong?)
> >
> > That said, I still think that the ssb driver claims the wrong pci ids,
> > which is especially wrong if the the b43/b43legacy drivers are not
> > even built. And my patch fixes exactly this problem - the ssb driver
> > no more claims the broadcom pci ids, when the b43/b43legacy drivers
> > are not built.
> >
> > One better solution I think might be to move the b43_pci_bridge.c
> > code to a separate module, and let the b43/b43legacy drivers
> > depend on it, but as I said, I have little knowledge in the
> > ssb stuff, so I did it the easy way.
>
> See the comment in b43_pci_bridge.c
>
Yes, I've seen it. And this design, kind of, causes me some trouble. ^

> --
> Greetings Michael.
>