Notes on ssb specs and implementation

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

W dniu 9 lutego 2011 21:17 u?ytkownik Michael B?sch <mb@bu3sch.de> napisa?:
> 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.

Nothing has changed in specs since 2006:
http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/Backplane?action=info
For some reason routines that were present even in 2006 was not implemented.


>> 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?

I've just written missing parts, tested and it still does not work :|
The only advantage discovered so far is that ssb detects sth is wrong
with IM state:
[ 2661.449647] ssb: Timeout waiting for bitmask 01800000 on register
0F90 to clear.

I can see wl experiencing the same problems after loading b43. It
reads 0xf90 dozen of times in a row.

-- 
Rafa?