From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bues.ch ([80.190.117.144]:50408 "EHLO bues.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392Ab1GWIzE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2011 04:55:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:54:58 +0200 From: Michael =?UTF-8?B?QsO8c2No?= To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , b43-dev@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ssb: define boardflags Message-ID: <20110723105458.61ed2073@maggie> (sfid-20110723_105509_016628_E03A31E2) In-Reply-To: References: <1311412213-3825-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <1311412213-3825-2-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <20110723103725.6d5bab09@maggie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:49:55 +0200 Rafał Miłecki wrote: > W dniu 23 lipca 2011 10:37 użytkownik Michael Büsch napisał: > > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:10:11 +0200 > > Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > >> They are SPROM specific, so all should be defined in ssb code. > > > > Oh, well. I'm not sure. > > Most of these currently are defined in b43 code, because they are b43-specific > > and _not_ ssb specific. If we decide to define them in ssb, they need to be > > removed from b43, at least. > > Well, SPROM is board specific (not 80211 core specific), so I believe > the same applies to boardflags, doesn't it? Boardflags are read from > SPROM, so it makes sense for me. No. Most of these flags are specific to the whole device (the board). Most flags are invalid or have another meaning for b44, for instance. -- Greetings, Michael.