From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848BCC433DB for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C27A22E01 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388563AbhALInw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:43:52 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47058 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387596AbhALInw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 03:43:52 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D926C061786 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id s26so2121498lfc.8 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:43:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BxyNxMHElMXOOAgVPBeBSDS8pCNJP4Z5xG4TnIqGoYM=; b=JTQn+69sWYbhlKXZv3X4eZttY+X92QD+ZoyXuq4kWEGkHo/fyDd8HHd2PISdfK0Z1a MS/8FlL/xK8/fKHiDZa+zanBmmabQPFO2Dn51PewF0nLHo1ef0aDwE1tMISAqQ8QVJr/ TjMg9cVbtURCRqXh/DmEc6XU9LrUJP2iW/L342RKuROqfW6fTdk4iWhUTJqY+B1dsd4c 5JS58vNZBs3XRhfzNMV7c1wnwmO/1IlgVfBxWwL+B0nCQaFfghLKe5nZLVpaHcdNk9HP poHzrqV8ioa4A6LNQ+U2a+bdmai4+mfKUAveusYbvYWfqNnS47IE30icLf1Ihty92q/N 3ULg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BxyNxMHElMXOOAgVPBeBSDS8pCNJP4Z5xG4TnIqGoYM=; b=TBmDBooCgQyG8FU8i6tmandBVp+7RwSs7pvdIfPRmssFY6Fy1s5sc43pxStUgLCA70 9fcy4z/8nchW/pYBRsT01EgjQUHieS+EshgjRCIN1UbtzDaUFQ8H8EJdX4lLMMtuz9Z6 TwZvsZyAPZ8DlqJny9xcj8PqUCvArBSn1Y0wJWt0tsjk97HAhjuCzRMb10WWBB7Au/+9 Z34+kOTSrXp4ldrrGvnUOi4c9KlX4Kts+5MgiP8WWCXFG1Lwaf940aWA0Err+lCgzKWT waY9syqW9ApiSC1CcbChHhzG0yJ/todrk1q1tMTnS8CcHa0mx0kNRFrhG7vA01oqkenB 5zig== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Affb9+tEAWMjGTPiqUBxvp1qqt4IhG6d6LYiVq7OdxgPf5+T3 /rh8EGqw2LtTcfulZp3Tp9PD5nG8+HcELl3ftbM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxg5i6Fw58/40Ny+C4udV5p6vdZtvz/0P6V0ljEK8NYpM0rGdZjCIukVcc0w0qq3Muvo+tLG6AB1knYVRAsLi0= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:434a:: with SMTP id o10mr1623588lfl.247.1610440990002; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:43:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Patrik Jakobsson Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Conflicting PCI ID in bdc driver To: Alan Cooper Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Felipe Balbi , USB list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:06 AM Alan Cooper wrote: > > This driver was written for a PCI FPGA development board used to > verify the controller logic and to help with driver development before > adding the logic to our SoC's. I'm not sure why the driver was pushed > upstream but I'd like to remove it. I'm checking with a few other > groups to make sure I'm not missing anything. That would solve my problem. Is removing a driver acceptable for stable submission? If not, it would be helpful to have a patch suitable for stable that disables the driver before removal. I'm somewhat tired of explaining to people how to blacklist bdc. > > Thanks > Al > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:02 PM Patrik Jakobsson > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:34:01PM +0100, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: > > > > Hi Al, > > > > The PCI device ID of 0x1570 in the bdc driver (bdc_pci.c) is > > > > conflicting with the Apple FacetimeHD webcam [1]. Is this caused by an > > > > incorrect ID in the bdc driver or are there actually two devices with > > > > the same ID in the wild? If we have a real conflict, how would we go > > > > about solving this? > > > > > > Looks like someone at broadcom messed up :( > > > > > > Can you look for any other fields in the device other than just the > > > vendor/device ids to verify that this really is a webcam so you can not > > > bind to the same thing this driver wants to bind to? > > > > Right, we could check the class. But I suppose it must be fixed in > > both drivers? bdc must not bind to the webcam and facetimehd must not > > bind to the UDC. So which class is bdc reporting? > > PCI_CLASS_SERIAL_USB_DEVICE? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h