Hi, Larry,
In the patch ftp://lwfinger.dynalias.org/patches/patch_2.6.18.1_for_PCI-E,
there is a following code:
@@ -2582,8 +2586,9 @@ static int bcm43xx_probe_cores(struct bc
/* fetch sb_id_hi from core information registers */
sb_id_hi = bcm43xx_read32(bcm, BCM43xx_CIR_SB_ID_HI);
- core_id = (sb_id_hi & 0xFFF0) >> 4;
- core_rev = (sb_id_hi & 0xF);
+ core_id = (sb_id_hi & 0x8FF0) >> 4;
+ core_rev = (sb_id_hi & 0x7000) >> 8;
+ core_rev |= (sb_id_hi & 0xF);
core_vendor = (sb_id_hi & 0xFFFF0000) >> 16;
However, in this patch
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bcm43xx-dev/2007-January/003484.html, there
is a following code:
@@ -2704,8 +2704,8 @@ static int bcm43xx_probe_cores(struct bc
sb_id_hi = bcm43xx_read32(bcm, BCM43xx_CIR_SB_ID_HI);
/* extract core_id, core_rev, core_vendor */
- core_id = (sb_id_hi & 0xFFF0) >> 4;
- core_rev = (sb_id_hi & 0xF);
+ core_id = (sb_id_hi & 0x8FF0) >> 4;
+ core_rev = ((sb_id_hi & 0xF) | ((sb_id_hi & 0x7000) >> 8));
core_vendor = (sb_id_hi & 0xFFFF0000) >> 16;
Notice the difference in the calculation of the core_rev variable.
Which version is correct one?
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
