From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:9589 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934018AbaLLIvN (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 03:51:13 -0500 Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0NGG0063FOS5TH30@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:55:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Stefan Schmidt References: <1418339480-26681-1-git-send-email-andrey@snupi.com> In-reply-to: <1418339480-26681-1-git-send-email-andrey@snupi.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] at86rf230: remove version check for AT86RF212 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:50:50 +0000 Message-id: <243a01d015e8$bb7cf930$3276eb90$@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-language: en-gb Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: 'Andrey Yurovsky' , linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org Cc: 'Andrey Yurovsky' , alex.aring@gmail.com Hello. On 12/12/14 00:11, Andrey Yurovsky wrote: > From: Andrey Yurovsky > > This version check allows the driver to only work with v1 hardware > however there is no driver-facing difference with newer versions > (confirmed by Atmel FAEs) so this check needlessly prevents the driver > from being used with radios now in production. Has anyone tested the driver with this new hardware yet? Or are the productions so early that there are now samples yet? > Signed-off-by: Andrey Yurovsky > --- > drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 16 ++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > index 1c01356..007470f 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > @@ -1429,16 +1429,12 @@ at86rf230_detect_device(struct at86rf230_local > *lp) > break; > case 7: > chip = "at86rf212"; > - if (version == 1) { > - lp->data = &at86rf212_data; > - lp->hw->flags |= IEEE802154_HW_LBT; > - lp->hw->phy->channels_supported[0] = 0x00007FF; > - lp->hw->phy->channels_supported[2] = 0x00007FF; > - lp->hw->phy->current_channel = 5; > - lp->hw->phy->symbol_duration = 25; > - } else { > - rc = -ENOTSUPP; > - } > + lp->data = &at86rf212_data; > + lp->hw->flags |= IEEE802154_HW_LBT; > + lp->hw->phy->channels_supported[0] = 0x00007FF; > + lp->hw->phy->channels_supported[2] = 0x00007FF; > + lp->hw->phy->current_channel = 5; > + lp->hw->phy->symbol_duration = 25; > break; > case 11: > chip = "at86rf233"; > Change looks good. Reviewed-by: Stefan Schmidt regards Stefan Schmidt