From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([217.30.184.167]:49232 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754679AbaKOBgn (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 20:36:43 -0500 Message-ID: <5466AE29.2080502@iki.fi> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:36:41 +0200 From: Antti Palosaari MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CrazyCat , linux-media , Olli Salonen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tuners: si2157: Si2148 support. References: <1918522.5V5b9CGsli@computer> <5466A606.8030805@iki.fi> <525911416014537@web7h.yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <525911416014537@web7h.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/15/2014 03:22 AM, CrazyCat wrote: > 2148 is 2158 without analog support. Same firmware. > > 15.11.2014, 03:02, "Antti Palosaari" : >> I wonder if we should define own firmware for Si2148-A20 just for sure. >> Olli? But still... I have seen one case where even same revision of si2168 needs different firmware. It is not very clear for me how SiLabs uses these firmwares, but at least it seems to be: * There is different versions done from same chips. A10 < A20 < A30 < B40 and so. I think that means digital logic inside of chip is changed when they change that revision number. * Every chip has a ROM, containing default firmware. Firmware which driver downloads is just a patch to that ROM. ROM is updated regularly when new patch of chips are manufactured. So currently I have feeling it is better to define as many firmware files as there chip revisions available, even same firmware works for multiple chip models/versions/revisions. regards Antti -- http://palosaari.fi/