[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?