On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:21:23PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> There is no point in having special case for the revision when probing a
> switch model. The code gets cluttered with unnecessary defines, and
> leads to errors when code such as mv88e6131_setup compares
> PORT_SWITCH_ID_6131_B2 to ps->id which mask the revision.
>
> Drop every revision definitions, add a ps->rev variable for eventual
> runtime checking and lookup only the product number.
You forgot to update the commit message. ps->rev has been removed in
this version.
>
> /* Look up the exact switch ID */
This comment now becomes meaningless. Please delete.
> for (i = 0; i < num; ++i)
> - if (table[i].id == ret)
> + if (table[i].id == (ret & 0xfff0))
> return table[i].name;
Andrew
