The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() duplicates EXAR_DEVICE(). Kill the former.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c | 19 +++++--------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
index 150c4abd92fc..ab0abc14ecf8 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
@@ -1737,7 +1737,6 @@ static const struct exar8250_board pbn_exar_XR17V8358 = {
.exit = pci_xr17v35x_exit,
};
-// For Connect Tech cards with Exar vendor/device PCI IDs
#define CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
PCI_VENDOR_ID_EXAR, \
@@ -1747,16 +1746,6 @@ static const struct exar8250_board pbn_exar_XR17V8358 = {
(kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
}
-// For Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based)
-#define CTI_PCI_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
- PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
- PCI_VENDOR_ID_CONNECT_TECH, \
- PCI_DEVICE_ID_CONNECT_TECH_PCI_##devid, \
- PCI_ANY_ID, \
- PCI_ANY_ID), 0, 0, \
- (kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
- }
-
#define EXAR_DEVICE(vend, devid, bd) { PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, devid, &bd) }
#define IBM_DEVICE(devid, sdevid, bd) { \
@@ -1786,6 +1775,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id exar_pci_tbl[] = {
EXAR_DEVICE(ACCESSIO, COM_4SM, pbn_exar_XR17C15x),
EXAR_DEVICE(ACCESSIO, COM_8SM, pbn_exar_XR17C15x),
+ /* Connect Tech cards with Exar vendor/device PCI IDs */
CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C152, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C154, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C158, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
@@ -1798,9 +1788,10 @@ static const struct pci_device_id exar_pci_tbl[] = {
CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17V354, pbn_cti_xr17v35x),
CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17V358, pbn_cti_xr17v35x),
- CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_12_XIG00X, pbn_cti_fpga),
- CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_12_XIG01X, pbn_cti_fpga),
- CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_16, pbn_cti_fpga),
+ /* Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based) */
+ EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_12_XIG00X, pbn_cti_fpga),
+ EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_12_XIG01X, pbn_cti_fpga),
+ EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_16, pbn_cti_fpga),
IBM_DEVICE(XR17C152, SATURN_SERIAL_ONE_PORT, pbn_exar_ibm_saturn),
--
2.43.0.rc1.1336.g36b5255a03acOn Thu, 2 May 2024 17:43:57 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() duplicates EXAR_DEVICE(). Kill the former.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c | 19 +++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
> index 150c4abd92fc..ab0abc14ecf8 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_exar.c
> @@ -1737,7 +1737,6 @@ static const struct exar8250_board pbn_exar_XR17V8358 = {
> .exit = pci_xr17v35x_exit,
> };
>
> -// For Connect Tech cards with Exar vendor/device PCI IDs
> #define CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
> PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
> PCI_VENDOR_ID_EXAR, \
> @@ -1747,16 +1746,6 @@ static const struct exar8250_board pbn_exar_XR17V8358 = {
> (kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
> }
>
> -// For Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based)
> -#define CTI_PCI_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
> - PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
> - PCI_VENDOR_ID_CONNECT_TECH, \
> - PCI_DEVICE_ID_CONNECT_TECH_PCI_##devid, \
> - PCI_ANY_ID, \
> - PCI_ANY_ID), 0, 0, \
> - (kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
> - }
> -
> #define EXAR_DEVICE(vend, devid, bd) { PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, devid, &bd) }
>
This is not correct. The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() macro is for cards that have the
Connect Tech PCI Vendor ID (not Sub-Vendor ID). EXAR_DEVICE() is for cards with
Exar PCI Vendor ID.
Thanks,
Parker
> #define IBM_DEVICE(devid, sdevid, bd) { \
> @@ -1786,6 +1775,7 @@ static const struct pci_device_id exar_pci_tbl[] = {
> EXAR_DEVICE(ACCESSIO, COM_4SM, pbn_exar_XR17C15x),
> EXAR_DEVICE(ACCESSIO, COM_8SM, pbn_exar_XR17C15x),
>
> + /* Connect Tech cards with Exar vendor/device PCI IDs */
> CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C152, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
> CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C154, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
> CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17C158, pbn_cti_xr17c15x),
> @@ -1798,9 +1788,10 @@ static const struct pci_device_id exar_pci_tbl[] = {
> CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17V354, pbn_cti_xr17v35x),
> CTI_EXAR_DEVICE(XR17V358, pbn_cti_xr17v35x),
>
> - CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_12_XIG00X, pbn_cti_fpga),
> - CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_12_XIG01X, pbn_cti_fpga),
> - CTI_PCI_DEVICE(XR79X_16, pbn_cti_fpga),
> + /* Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based) */
> + EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_12_XIG00X, pbn_cti_fpga),
> + EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_12_XIG01X, pbn_cti_fpga),
> + EXAR_DEVICE(CONNECT_TECH, PCI_XR79X_16, pbn_cti_fpga),
>
> IBM_DEVICE(XR17C152, SATURN_SERIAL_ONE_PORT, pbn_exar_ibm_saturn),
>
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:13:14AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:43:57 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() duplicates EXAR_DEVICE(). Kill the former.
...
> > -// For Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based)
> > -#define CTI_PCI_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
> > - PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
> > - PCI_VENDOR_ID_CONNECT_TECH, \
> > - PCI_DEVICE_ID_CONNECT_TECH_PCI_##devid, \
#define PCI_DEVICE_SUB(vend, dev, subvend, subdev) \
.vendor = (vend), .device = (dev), \
.subvendor = (subvend), .subdevice = (subdev)
#define PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, dev, data) \
.vendor = PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device = PCI_DEVICE_ID_##vend##_##dev, \
.subvendor = PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice = PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, \
.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)(data)
> > - PCI_ANY_ID, \
> > - PCI_ANY_ID), 0, 0, \
> > - (kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
> > - }
> > -
> > #define EXAR_DEVICE(vend, devid, bd) { PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, devid, &bd) }
> This is not correct. The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() macro is for cards that have the
> Connect Tech PCI Vendor ID (not Sub-Vendor ID). EXAR_DEVICE() is for cards with
> Exar PCI Vendor ID.
Above I added current code of these macros, can you elaborate how it's incorrect?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:29:05 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:13:14AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:43:57 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() duplicates EXAR_DEVICE(). Kill the former.
>
> ...
>
> > > -// For Connect Tech cards with Connect Tech vendor/device PCI IDs (FPGA based)
> > > -#define CTI_PCI_DEVICE(devid, bd) { \
> > > - PCI_DEVICE_SUB( \
> > > - PCI_VENDOR_ID_CONNECT_TECH, \
> > > - PCI_DEVICE_ID_CONNECT_TECH_PCI_##devid, \
>
>
> #define PCI_DEVICE_SUB(vend, dev, subvend, subdev) \
> .vendor = (vend), .device = (dev), \
> .subvendor = (subvend), .subdevice = (subdev)
>
> #define PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, dev, data) \
> .vendor = PCI_VENDOR_ID_##vend, .device = PCI_DEVICE_ID_##vend##_##dev, \
> .subvendor = PCI_ANY_ID, .subdevice = PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, \
> .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)(data)
>
>
> > > - PCI_ANY_ID, \
> > > - PCI_ANY_ID), 0, 0, \
> > > - (kernel_ulong_t)&bd \
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > #define EXAR_DEVICE(vend, devid, bd) { PCI_DEVICE_DATA(vend, devid, &bd) }
>
> > This is not correct. The CTI_PCI_DEVICE() macro is for cards that have the
> > Connect Tech PCI Vendor ID (not Sub-Vendor ID). EXAR_DEVICE() is for cards with
> > Exar PCI Vendor ID.
>
> Above I added current code of these macros, can you elaborate how it's incorrect?
>
Sorry, you are correct. I was mixed up.
Thanks,
Parker
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:29:05 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:13:14AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: ... > > Above I added current code of these macros, can you elaborate how it's incorrect? > > Sorry, you are correct. I was mixed up. No problem. And since you are here, can you tell me what type of EEPROM is connected to the chip in your case? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:43:59 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:29:05 +0300 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:13:14AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > ... > > > > Above I added current code of these macros, can you elaborate how it's incorrect? > > > > Sorry, you are correct. I was mixed up. > > No problem. And since you are here, can you tell me what type of EEPROM is > connected to the chip in your case? > Microchip AT93C46D and various other vendors equivalent parts. Let me know if you have any other questions. Parker
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:54:39AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:43:59 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 May 2024 18:29:05 +0300 > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:13:14AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: ... > > > > Above I added current code of these macros, can you elaborate how it's incorrect? > > > > > > Sorry, you are correct. I was mixed up. > > > > No problem. And since you are here, can you tell me what type of EEPROM is > > connected to the chip in your case? > > Microchip AT93C46D and various other vendors equivalent parts. Thank you! > Let me know if you have any other questions. Nope, just asking you to test and review the series when you have time. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.