On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 09:51 +0000, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

quoted

+static struct phy_driver bcm5482_driver = {
+    .phy_id		= 0x0143bcb0,
+	.phy_id_mask	= 0xfffffff0,

 Please check formatting above and also I am a bit curious as to why the 
ID is so different from the other ones -- the number is meant to be based 
on the OUI assigned to the manufacturer.  Otherwise your addition is fine.

I'll re-submit with the formatting fixed.

I can't figure out why the ID is so different from the others, but I did
double-check it and test it on real hardware.

For what it's worth, I've found a lot of inconsistency in these ID
values. For example, the chips with ID1 == 0x0020 seem to use the wrong
set of OUI bits (22:7 instead of 21:6), while others (BCM5221) with ID1
== 0x0040 do it properly conforming to the IEEE standard.

I can't figure out how they got the ID values for the BCM5482.  If you
extract the OUI from 0x0143bcb0, you get 0x0050ef (which the *BSD guys
list as an alternate "mangled" Broadcom OUI).  The BCM5787 and BCM5755
also seem to share this same ID formula with the BCM5482.

- Nate Case [off-list ref]