On 07/08/17 13:32, Arend van Spriel wrote:

We actually just need the chipcommon base address so why not have that
here, ie.:
+    u32 cc_base;

I see no advantage to that - the u32 is the same size as (or not much
bigger than the pointer to the struct brcmf_core, and my approach makes
it clear where the value came from rather than making another copy of it.

Another option is to simple use SI_ENUM_BASE as the chipcommon base
address will always be 0x18000000 for the SDIO chips.

I don't like this approach. Why bother probing the core if we then dont
use the values returned? May as well hard code everything... Also not
futureproof.

-Ian