Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix code for spec changes of 2/7/2007

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 14:55 -0500, Joseph Jezak wrote:

> Well, here's the problem.  There are a few places where a value is 
> changed (different value written to a register).  Does this mean 
> that the value is different due to the uCode changes (can't tell, no 
> documentation)? 

From what I've seen in the ucode that question isn't really too hard to
answer: as long as it's not in the shared memory or ucode register space
the ucode can't really have an influence.

>  Is it applicable to all revisions (can't tell, some 
> revisions are not supported in this version)?  

Best bet would be to make it conditional right now and have someone test
for these cases with older hw.

> If the revision 
> number range in a check changes is that because of a difference in 
> supported cards or a bug fix?

Hmm. Same I guess, use the new check for new hw and the old check for
old hw, i.e. assume it's the former and not a bug fix (until tested
otherwise.)

I think our best bet is to treat the older hw the same as the older
driver does.

A bigger problem, IMO, is that we'd have to support all the older
microcode things which is a bit tricky since things in shm have moved a
lot... Maybe we should find a third maintainer who has access to a
couple of old cards :)

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]