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 0D823C433E0 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:52:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B825C206C3 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436646AbhALTv5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:51:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50406 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2436692AbhALTv5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:51:57 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D23CAC0617A2 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:51:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id 81so6568702ioc.13 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:51:16 -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=XMCnKfDlWC5NXaPRRS8TxwObXdtJi2WrsGWt2QHzI54=; b=L94oFc8IAE5xkkOFsa3N6p3g6tBlvBIZznl0JlobapqE77CIco2llgkY9zQDzbbHjf a/90QXp05hkzoWgk0edPeDwEvSHm81hhnltLZjSDzPRKfk8wHplG83F2dmeaD22Rr4mV sQ6Fgqkafd8lwopIfU5C1A2wSEOhoXkuUWyQaCmWHZq1ip8uytg/RnxHwuBC05q0djeW LcHkCk5TtKkp42l0YMpwK4yf/eL6uFNf/Mxi+R5Eack/DLWShP5nbumywj3n3TZTKYc5 4dLgWToOmJyBpVO0XLVX9qicUBBkakz8f6aFXhJUoCbSQmoxkl+YSeZgKXniFPnpwEA4 9VHw== 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=XMCnKfDlWC5NXaPRRS8TxwObXdtJi2WrsGWt2QHzI54=; b=SRHUSqvZATOtTJTMCku6fzA+M+5OgBlOiCx7FESfbZae5+7mnnnYExY5Vy16Gw4vqs dlUZJbL6/WuHb+FBiDi7XFm9rbIlBv55z2wqrkNsnKHr3XwCM7NMty4rSxWJpXfGbOmP mQwm4xCMT+7nkFeYavAwlRJdv/VOUJwNcqGtQDV2HT7VfzO1BWTT4Lo/AchtL79nz7Sw JWhEjyQ0kit75WF7wqMqFdRk6HaKBGW0t+lh4nfs+2FX0vhABvvJ22wZL6bKKcsWW44Y Cc1I+dmqC4N/L7i20r586e44sb6xYSWcIG89V71Qc/BCMmWZUyUgmZjgOk5i61p3qKct IjfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QcTub+T/TzXpy5LxSrgnmKj6OKYEN7oRXrq0zhVMdbRR4fmwr uExmBuRrIrUBkWofmtIDJkpHtz6trabM+XZtXMJTBRNx X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyU81gfbNCoevLtOczK7nrekjljaWP9V+lpH5yMihAuWGYMoa5RPElZW04ZokEFhm5CYEv9qLEhex4nnsZPylY= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:f112:: with SMTP id e18mr479180iog.195.1610481076234; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 11:51:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alan Cooper Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:51:05 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Conflicting PCI ID in bdc driver To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Patrik Jakobsson , Felipe Balbi , USB list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org I just checked with the hardware engineer that designed the BDC core. The BDC PCI driver was used with an FPGA/PCIe board for design verification and no one should be using this driver. I'll send a patch that will remove this driver. Thanks Al On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:57 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:42:58AM +0100, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: > > 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? > > Not really, if there are users of that driver. Why not just mark the > config to depend on BROKEN instead? > > But first we need to ensure that the users of it are really all gone. > > > 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. > > Why not submit your driver for inclusion in the kernel tree? We can > make sure it doesn't conflict when that happens. > > thanks, > > greg k-h