From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=FCsch?= Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:17:01 +0100 Subject: Notes on ssb specs and implementation In-Reply-To: (sfid-20110209_210017_862769_37B0C3E4) References: (sfid-20110209_210017_862769_37B0C3E4) Message-ID: <1297282621.9734.5.camel@maggie> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: =?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Larry Finger , b43-dev On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 21:00 +0100, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: > Michael: was there any reasons why we didn't implement some parts of > core-disabling code? The function are complete as of latest reverse engineering efforts. Broadcom added stuff, if they do more stuff in latest code. > Michael: should we care about the way wl sets core specific flags? I > didn't dig into that moment in MMIO dumps, but as ssb_device_enable > implementation ignores flags at the end, it has to set flags somehow > differently on it's own. I have no idea. ssb_device_enable is very hairy and I'm not going to touch it without good reason and regression testing. You didn't tell us the important part: Does changing ssb_device_enable make it work? -- Greetings Michael.