Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:53:36 +0300 | From | "Alexey Zaytsev" <> | Subject | Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch) |
| |
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008 01:32:21 Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > > 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. > > There are several reasons to not do a seperate module. > > First one being: People won't load it and complain about a regression. > Yeah, stupid stuff like that happens all the time. That's the reason we > SELECT the ssb code instead of using DEPENDS ON. People will otherwise not > enable it and report regressions. > And please don't say this won't happen. It _did_ happen when b44-PCI was > a seperate kconfig option. People reported regressions, although there were none. > I mean, not to make it a separate config option, of course it should be hidden and autoselected, but a separate module with maybe a symbol both b43/b43legacy could depend on.
> Second one being: It's overkill to have a seperate module for two lines of code > and a PCI ID table. > > Third one being: We want the code to be as small as possible, as it must > all run on embedded machines. In general being as small as possible should > be the way to go. >
If compiled statically, which I think is the right thing for embedded systems, it should not take much additional space when separated from the ssb code.
| |