Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:53430 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752636Ab1DHR1M convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:27:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1302033463-1846-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:27:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] bcmai: introduce AI driver From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: Arend van Spriel Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "John W. Linville" , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= , Larry Finger , George Kashperko , "b43-dev@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , linuxdriverproject , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2011/4/8 Arend van Spriel : > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:56:13 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> 2011/4/6 Arend van Spriel : >>> >>> 3. Device identification >>> >>> The cores are identified by manufacturer, core id and revision in your >>> patch. I would not use the revision because 4 out of 5 times a revision >>> change does indicate a hardware change but no change in programming >>> interface. The enumeration data does contain a more selective field >>> indicating the core class (4 bits following the core identifier). I >>> suggest >>> to replace the revision field by this class field. >> >> Could you say something more about *class*, please? For my BCM43224 it >> seems to be 0x0. WIll check BCM4313 in a moment. >> > > In principal the manufacturer id is unique (defined/assigned by JEDEC > www.jedec.org) and the chip id and chip class are defined by the > manufacturer. So I can only indicate what classes Broadcom uses in > combination with the manufacturer id BRCM, ARM and MIPS. > > /* Component Classes */ > #define CC_SIM                  0 > #define CC_EROM                 1 > #define CC_CORESIGHT            9 > #define CC_VERIF                0xb > #define CC_OPTIMO               0xd > #define CC_GEN                  0xe > #define CC_PRIMECELL            0xf > > Looking at this it seems strange that you see a class value of 0x0. It may > be rarely used or for non-production chips only (for simulation, chip > bringup) which may require additional (debug) functions. So question is > whether you will need it, but it is specified by ARM and it is up to > manufacturers to use it. So I it is better to be safe than sorry and have > this in the device id. OK, thanks. I'm compiling kernel with patch V2 right now. Of course class included. -- Rafał