From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:56663 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423182AbXBISsS (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:48:18 -0500 From: Michael Buesch To: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix code for spec changes of 2/7/2007 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:48:12 +0100 Cc: Joseph Jezak , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, John Linville , Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de References: <45cca236.+lL/rsW3DbM3elnk%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <200702091829.51002.mb@bu3sch.de> <45CCBB93.2040703@lwfinger.net> In-Reply-To: <45CCBB93.2040703@lwfinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200702091948.13296.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 09 February 2007 19:21, Larry Finger wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Friday 09 February 2007 23:22, Joseph Jezak wrote: > >>> Well, I don't review the rest until you say to which specs you did the changes. ;) > >> http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/B5PHY > >> > >> Larry was working from the old specs, so when I updated it, I only > >> updated the old specs. I'll fix the v4 specs soon. > > > > Ah, ok. I think we should decide on which specs carry most recent information. > > I think v3 specs should be considered obsolete and new information/ fixes > > should go into v4. It is already too confusing where to find newest information > > to a certain thing. > > > > I'll agree to that as long as there is a clear indication of any differences between V3 and V4 firmware. Well, the difference between v3 and v4 is: * The SHM API. * v4 may include less BPHY stuff, as broadcom's v4 drivers don't include BHY anymore. So I'd say for everything bug BPHY the v4 specs should be considered latest. -- Greetings Michael.