Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:49:39 +0200 From: Fredrik Lindberg <fli+freebsd-current@shapeshifter.se> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linksys EG1032 rev. 3 patch Message-ID: <43425033.6070409@shapeshifter.se> In-Reply-To: <20051003.165337.14303305.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <433FB9B9.9020207@shapeshifter.se> <20051003.132634.20912224.imp@bsdimp.com> <4341A55B.1070209@shapeshifter.se> <20051003.165337.14303305.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <4341A55B.1070209@shapeshifter.se>
> Fredrik Lindberg <fli+freebsd-current@shapeshifter.se> writes:
> : Filtering on subvendor/subdevice might be better, I didn't even think
> : of that and revision filtering seemed to be quite popular among
> : exsisting drivers.
>
> Yes. Many chip vendors bump the revision field 'often'. Just how
> often varies from chip maker to chip maker. Some do only when they
> have a new version of the chip that needs special work arounds (or
> that no longer needs them :-). Others do change it for each change to
> the silicon. Most are somewhere inbetween.
>
> : The subdevice id for a rev.3 card seems to be 0x0024 (subvendor 0x1737).
> : I don't own a rev. 2 card but google says that the rev.2 card has
> : subdevice id 0x0015 (subvendor 0x1737).
>
> That might be sufficient...
>
Ok, how should this be implemented then? Just a specific check in each
drivers probe methods or by adding some svid/sdid fields to
struct rl_type and similar structs.
I would go for the latter, but that might be overkill.
Fredrik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43425033.6070409>