[PATCH] ssb: drop BCM4328 hack for SPROM revision

[PATCH] ssb: drop BCM4328 hack for SPROM revision

[Rafał Miłecki]

This hacks leads to incorrect SPROM parsing for me and reading for example MAC
as: 00:00:00:54:00:00. Michael G. who introduced this confirmed it is not
needed anymore.

Signed-off-by: Rafa? Mi?ecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
---
Michael: I guess I could add your Tested-by. Is that right?

John: it's 2.6.38 ofc. It should apply cleanly no matter if you applied my
previous patch for guessing unknown SPROM revision. There is not dependence
between that 2 patches.
---
 drivers/ssb/pci.c |    4 ----
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ssb/pci.c b/drivers/ssb/pci.c
index b5343ac..f529663 100644
--- a/drivers/ssb/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/ssb/pci.c
@@ -580,10 +580,6 @@ static int sprom_extract(struct ssb_bus *bus, struct ssb_sprom *out,
 		 * Always extract r1. */
 		out->revision = 1;
 		ssb_dprintk(KERN_DEBUG PFX "SPROM treated as revision %d\n", out->revision);
-	} else if (bus->chip_id == 0x4321) {
-		/* the BCM4328 has a chipid == 0x4321 and a rev 4 SPROM */
-		out->revision = 4;
-		ssb_dprintk(KERN_DEBUG PFX "SPROM treated as revision %d\n", out->revision);
 	}
 
 	switch (out->revision) {
-- 
1.6.0.4

[PATCH] ssb: drop BCM4328 hack for SPROM revision

[Rafał Miłecki]

W dniu 18 listopada 2010 01:12 u?ytkownik Michael Gerdau <mgd@qata.de> napisa?:
>> This hacks leads to incorrect SPROM parsing for me and reading for
>> example MAC as: 00:00:00:54:00:00. Michael G. who introduced this
>> confirmed it is not needed anymore.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafa? Mi?ecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Michael: I guess I could add your Tested-by. Is that right?
>
> That ist right. I suppose the correct entry would be
> Tested-by: Michael Gerdau <mgd@qata.de>

John: can you add this, please?

-- 
Rafa?

[PATCH] ssb: drop BCM4328 hack for SPROM revision

[Michael Gerdau]

> This hacks leads to incorrect SPROM parsing for me and reading for
> example MAC as: 00:00:00:54:00:00. Michael G. who introduced this
> confirmed it is not needed anymore.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafa? Mi?ecki <zajec5@gmail.com>
> ---
> Michael: I guess I could add your Tested-by. Is that right?

That ist right. I suppose the correct entry would be
Tested-by: Michael Gerdau <mgd@qata.de>

> John: it's 2.6.38 ofc. It should apply cleanly no matter if you applied
> my previous patch for guessing unknown SPROM revision. There is not
> dependence between that 2 patches.
> ---
>  drivers/ssb/pci.c |    4 ----
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ssb/pci.c b/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> index b5343ac..f529663 100644
> --- a/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/ssb/pci.c
> @@ -580,10 +580,6 @@ static int sprom_extract(struct ssb_bus *bus, struct
> ssb_sprom *out, * Always extract r1. */
>  		out->revision = 1;
>  		ssb_dprintk(KERN_DEBUG PFX "SPROM treated as revision %d\n",
> out->revision); -	} else if (bus->chip_id == 0x4321) {
> -		/* the BCM4328 has a chipid == 0x4321 and a rev 4 SPROM */
> -		out->revision = 4;
> -		ssb_dprintk(KERN_DEBUG PFX "SPROM treated as revision %d\n",
> out->revision); }
> 
>  	switch (out->revision) {


-- 
 Michael Gerdau       email: mgd at qata.de
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/b43-dev/attachments/20101118/465405ee/attachment.sig>