[PATCH][RFC][RFT] ssb: pick PCMCIA host code support from b43 driver

Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.infradead.lists.b43-dev,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless
Message-ID <CACna6rzSqnJF2uBS-DszR+1PFNwqM8S0WecAE+R4QRJjGYuXYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 21 September 2015 at 18:20, Michael B?sch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:04:19 +0200
> Rafa? Mi?ecki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @@ -1464,6 +1463,12 @@ static int __init ssb_modinit(void)
>>               /* don't fail SSB init because of this */
>>               err = 0;
>>       }
>> +     err = ssb_host_pcmcia_init();
>> +     if (err) {
>> +             ssb_err("PCMCIA host initialization failed\n");
>> +             /* don't fail SSB init because of this */
>
> Why not? What's the point of not failing here?

I just copied the logic from few lines above where we handle PCI init.
I guess the point was to support other host devices even is PCI host
registration fails.


>> +static const struct pcmcia_device_id ssb_host_pcmcia_tbl[] = {
>> +     PCMCIA_DEVICE_MANF_CARD(0x2D0, 0x448),
>> +     PCMCIA_DEVICE_MANF_CARD(0x2D0, 0x476),
>> +     PCMCIA_DEVICE_NULL,
>> +};
>
> This doesn't belong into ssb'c pcmcia.c, IMO.
> It should be in a new file called b43_pcmcia_bridge.c, just like we have
> b43_pci_bridge.c.
> The bridge code technically (also for pci) doesn't belong into ssb. But
> it makes kconfig simpler.

This is something I don't understand. This PCI bridge was also always
confusing me.
Why do we want a separated file for that? What's wrong with having 1
file for host (PCI/PCMCIA) driver (probe and remove functions) *and*
ssb initialization?

-- 
Rafa?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.