Bug#483699: video-nsc: PCI ID conflict with newer video-geode
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> We have a way to be that precise, by statically defining what it
> actually supports, rather than grepping the driver for every ID that
> we find and hope that ALL resulting vendor+device combinations we
> produce are actually supported.
Please stop being so arrogant and claiming that we are doing just random
crap in our patch.
The driver does claim support for 4 chip ids * 2 vendor ids while your
patch only keep 2 chip ids * 1 vendor ids. If we really need to ignore
75% of the upstream hardware support, you're going to have to talk to
upstream about removing this hardware support that doesn't have to be there.
> As it so happens, my static list was
> validated by someone from AMD as being the correct one.
>
Why should I care more about AMD than about upstream?
> 1) The Geode chipset has a history that spans 3 chip manufacturers. In
> some cases, existing PCI ID were maintained, despite changes in the
> device, between generations of chips made by the next manufacturer.
>
Needs to be fixed upstream.
> 2) Small parts of the code are mutually-compatible between Geode
> generations, but not enough to allow any driver to claim support for
> all Geodes.
>
Needs to be fixed upstream.
> 4) GX2 support was never a part of the upstream NSC driver. However,
> someone thought they would backport GX2 support into the NSC driver,
> using code from the OLPC prototype's GIT tree.
>
Needs to be fixed upstream.
> 5) Official support for the GX2 only exists in the -geode driver.
> Because of this, any claim in -nsc to support it will definitely cause
> problems, both because it has PCI ID conflicts, and because -nsc
> doesn't have official upstream support.
>
No maintainer doesn't mean that you can't send a patch to fix the
upstream driver. I can even commit it upstream for you (once somebody
will have acked it).
All this discussion should really be moved upstream from my point of
view. Once the upstream driver will have been fixed, we'll see if
there's actually something to fix in our patch. In the meantime, please
stop being arrogant and claiming that our patch does random stuff. It
just exposes what the driver claims. If the driver claims crap, that's
not our fault.
Brice
Reply to: