[RFC 2/2] match PCMCIA devcies in kernelspace

[David Hinds]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> 
> I checked the pcmcia-cs code and found out that the kernel code is not
> logically equivalent to the pcmcia-cs code. Therefore, it'd be helpful if
> you could tell me if there are a significant amount of PCMCIA devices where
> the function ID is "wrong" -- i.e. devices with function ID "3" but not
> working with the parport driver, ID "4" but not working with "ide_cs", ID
> "1" and not working with "memory_cs" and -- probably most important --
> ID "2" and "serial_cs". Note that multiple bindings to one card should work
> with my code nonetheless -- just a card with ID "2" but needing a different
> driver than "serial_cs" would fail.

I'm afraid I'd have a tough time coming up with specific examples of
incorrect function ID's, but they do happen.  I think the "serial"
case you mention is indeed the most problematic.  But are there cards
that identify themselves as "serial" that need a different driver?
I'm not sure.  How about 16-bit Winmodems (if there are any that have
Linux drivers)?  If it is not too much work, I think it is safer and
more "correct" to give function ID matches a lower priority; I don't
think a card function ID of "serial" makes any guarantees about what
register-level interface it provides.  It just happens that most are
8250-compatible.

I vaguely also remember inconsistencies between "fixed disk" and
"SCSI" cards, but don't remember specifics.

-- Dave