From: "Michael Büsch" <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ssb: fail registration for unknown SPROM revision
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:47:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290098865.12596.6.camel@maggie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimh_8X1uRPudmQLDOTeA_X0ciR9BbDgyahLDMSs@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20101118_174421_892253_3B53C8D3)
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 17:44 +0100, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
> 2010/11/18 Michael B?sch <mb@bu3sch.de>:
> >> [ 1036.293865] ssb: Unsupported SPROM revision 255 detected. Will extract v1
> >
> > So what about specialcasing 255 instead of defaulting to 1 in general?
> >
> > if (rev == 255)
> > rev = 1;
> >
> > 255 basically means "Vendor forgot to set this field". So it would only
> > default to 1 for those broken sproms.
>
> Will work as long as there won't appear new vendor who will forget to
> set this and will use new SPROM...
The old code will break for that, too.
> But hopefully it won't happen and it should not hurt too much to
> register device with incorrectly parsed SPROM.
If it would really succeed to initialize the device, this would be a
regulatory issue, because the sprom contains various power amplifier
calibration data. I think it should rather fail and be fixed correctly
instead of incorrectly using rev1 in that case.
--
Greetings Michael.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael Büsch" <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: "Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: fail registration for unknown SPROM revision
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:47:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1290098865.12596.6.camel@maggie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimh_8X1uRPudmQLDOTeA_X0ciR9BbDgyahLDMSs@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20101118_174421_892253_3B53C8D3)
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 17:44 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 2010/11/18 Michael Büsch <mb@bu3sch.de>:
> >> [ 1036.293865] ssb: Unsupported SPROM revision 255 detected. Will extract v1
> >
> > So what about specialcasing 255 instead of defaulting to 1 in general?
> >
> > if (rev == 255)
> > rev = 1;
> >
> > 255 basically means "Vendor forgot to set this field". So it would only
> > default to 1 for those broken sproms.
>
> Will work as long as there won't appear new vendor who will forget to
> set this and will use new SPROM...
The old code will break for that, too.
> But hopefully it won't happen and it should not hurt too much to
> register device with incorrectly parsed SPROM.
If it would really succeed to initialize the device, this would be a
regulatory issue, because the sprom contains various power amplifier
calibration data. I think it should rather fail and be fixed correctly
instead of incorrectly using rev1 in that case.
--
Greetings Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-18 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-03 22:28 [PATCH] ssb: return -ENOMEM on alloc fail (instead of CRC check's result) Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:28 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:28 ` [PATCH] ssb: fail registration for unknown SPROM revision Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:28 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:36 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-03 22:36 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-16 21:23 ` John W. Linville
2010-11-16 21:23 ` John W. Linville
2010-11-17 17:12 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-17 17:12 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 16:27 ` John W. Linville
2010-11-18 16:35 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 16:35 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 16:44 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-18 16:44 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-18 16:47 ` Michael Büsch [this message]
2010-11-18 16:47 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 17:02 ` Larry Finger
2010-11-18 17:02 ` Larry Finger
2010-11-18 17:07 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 17:07 ` Michael Büsch
2010-11-18 17:29 ` Larry Finger
2010-11-18 17:29 ` Larry Finger
2010-11-18 16:26 ` John W. Linville
2010-11-18 16:35 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-18 16:35 ` Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:31 ` [PATCH] ssb: return -ENOMEM on alloc fail (instead of CRC check's result) Rafał Miłecki
2010-11-03 22:31 ` Rafał Miłecki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1290098865.12596.6.camel@maggie \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=b43-dev@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=zajec5@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.