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=-2.7 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, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 1512BC433DB for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA56222D58 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 01:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731222AbhALBHW (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:07:22 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34002 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727919AbhALBHV (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:07:21 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49BCCC061575 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:06:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id q5so1276558ilc.10 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:06:41 -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=nzaCmTGVAdPW30IiuwjYL3Fn07bGewXd18aF9G0+2qc=; b=l+3m6w2ChUjHooFb2JVRiUZSs6Ju541XhRlIxwm25+lti+tMcdw9tyDBt18vVurY95 7B0W8s3rm/1N7LW+hshgdLUlIm/v3BAo1CGIgehQJkOUYyOfUK11Ym0MVdxB2x9cYyDu Qy0TP3Nzy1sRsUAx7t26A2dWNuOeeNI0E7LoYUa+2zdZoGXRT3Y5U4WkFd6mjsPLHNbA Kbg9U4Bj6i3UMrFTM+E95wdCAYwH/e19SEeDT/qflLR8Oy+lqKxmSD5CDh8nswQgwJ7X exeGHAOLjcPMzpTIdyDL6a5dDdoULB8/1uo2+Ti7wAkNuKoZqGAgf78YWGBdcGsOAkQB Zh0A== 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=nzaCmTGVAdPW30IiuwjYL3Fn07bGewXd18aF9G0+2qc=; b=Tf1JQGUaCEYyQws1LczAjPM195SbjHaH47D9S2XxESJ5o5jCCe2qRZasUKzA2mPQ5X 5BWmV8/nqSObmP+yzf4N4iX7ufZaoKAK9GQZYaOG1kf45VCkxkVu/yjf0pZk1jtp5wqA 8HACP0pFxBrbK5rLh8aXOUAxhiihNY4tvxfd9l8U9g3ZLW5RDt+KDmvC4yc157ricXJ5 qxAp6OXibwvxmnA7FZl92s+goKuVQxAhHlLPAb4h+lFcpjl1FMzXLYvK3ezmK/V7Pp9X rNFTLnPwDp2F3NG7bkhEXMLtBBSYDJHHKvI8SY4hO0K3CtyqIX6nYa9IusFNg5jNr7jC 8EUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316e/gkbTYJI/ImPU4LwBdMc6QuGu8bp2I0mOtwItvtd7b+9fnE 1G1Mb3GGZ168gUT3XFlcj79i8GvgRjJU5wuNKVI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygV84krkAH97KZ3B1w2Zc8aJ1T4OtkjT8IRuN8RlbjNaeDZhR2UzZKKH2qC8nc+0OtMJ694DIyFUnybnGn6lo= X-Received: by 2002:a92:9881:: with SMTP id a1mr1663997ill.238.1610413600651; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 17:06:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Cooper Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 20:06:29 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Conflicting PCI ID in bdc driver To: Patrik Jakobsson 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 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. 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