Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/pci

[Garrett D'Amore <garrett_damore%tadpole.com@localhost>]

ITOH Yasufumi wrote:
> In article <44C9F930.9020702%tadpole.com@localhost>
> garrett_damore%tadpole.com@localhost writes:
>
>   
>> Do you _know_ this to be true?  I entered this data from data sheets.  I 
>> know that ADMtek was at one point selling 9511 and 9513 parts.  I don't 
>> know if any OEMs ever picked them up, but at one point there were 
>> "evaluation boards" from ADMtek that did have these and had these device 
>> ids on them.
>>
>> Obviously Infineon has dropped these parts from the catalog, but again, 
>> I don't know that _none_ of these parts exist in the field.  At one 
>> point someone else had added either the 9511 or 9513, but incorrectly.  
>> As well, the other AN983 and AN985 parts were misentered, which is why I 
>> corrected them.
>>
>>     -- Garrett
>>
>>
>> ITOH Yasufumi wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Module Name:        src
>>> Committed By:       itohy
>>> Date:               Wed Jul 26 14:21:21 UTC 2006
>>>
>>> Modified Files:
>>>     src/sys/dev/pci: if_tlp_pci.c
>>>
>>> Log Message:
>>> Remove ADM9511's "signature".
>>> I don't think it is used anywhere.
>>>       
>
> Oops.
> I meant the difference of "signature" is not handled anywhere
> in the tlp driver.
> I know an ADM9511 devices are used in PCs.
>
> TULIP_CHIP_AN983 and TULIP_CHIP_AN985 are handled in the same way,
> and I felt it meaningless to classify ADM9511 as AN983 explicitly.
> We can add TULIP_CHIP_ADM9511, TULIP_CHIP_ADM9513, etc. instead,
> but I don't think is it worth doing.
>
> Regards,
>   

I've never seen actual parts.  Does this mean that these parts use the
AN983 device id in the device id or subsystem id register?  My read of
the doco suggested this was not the case, and someone else had
definitely added the ADM9511 (or was it the 9513?) so I assumed that
there was at least one device out there where it was required.

Its likely that one of these two ids (either 9513 or 9511) might not
have been handled in the PCI driver.

FWIW, I thought there was only TULIP_CHIP_AN985 (which probably should
have been named AN983, because the AN985 is just the Cardbus version of
the AN983), and that all these entries in the tlp code just referenced
that define to identify the chip as a Centaur variant.

-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191