Re: [PATCH PING] ssb patches for SPROM location

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 04/26/2010 01:33 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 2010/4/26 John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:22:28AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2010 10:51 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> W dniu 16 kwietnia 2010 15:37 użytkownik John W. Linville
>>>> <linville@tuxdriver.com> napisał:
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:20:51AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>>> John, I posted some time ago following patches:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [RFT][PATCH] ssb: Look for SPROM at different offset on higher rev CC
>>>>>> [PATCH 1/2] ssb: Use relative offsets for SPROM
>>>>>> [PATCH 2/2] ssb: Fix order of definitions and some text space indents
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while Michael has some doubts about "ssb: Look for SPROM at different
>>>>>> offset on higher rev CC" I explained to him that what he does not like
>>>>>> was fixed in next 2 posted patches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIR you got some device with this recently-discovered location of
>>>>>> SPROM. Could you test my set if it makes your card working? If so,
>>>>>> could you take that patches to your tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, been busy w/ other things.  FWIW, my implementation based on
>>>>> the RE work from Larry did not work on the box in question, and my
>>>>> implementation wasn't substantially different from yours.  Anyway,
>>>>> I'll try to confirm this soon w/ your patches and to collect more
>>>>> information for Larry.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I didn't know you got own implementation. Had to miss it.
>>>>
>>>> Larry do you have any ideas what else may we do incorrectly?
>>>
>>> No. AFAICT, we have implemented it correctly. Any additional info would
>>> be welcome.
>>
>> FWIW, this patch series also still results in a hang on my problematic
>> netbook.  I'm going to merge them anyway, in hopes that they make
>> things better for someone (or at least get us closer to it).  I'll try
>> to pinpoint this hang as well.
> 
> Did it actually pick another (newly discovered) offset for SPROM
> location in your case? Could you add some single printk to check this?

My suggestion is that for now we only implement John's patch for no
SPROM. I am hoping that we try to fix the failures for boxes with the
SPROM in a normal location. Once we do that, there will be a simpler fix
for testing at the alternate location. The patch will all be contained
in sprom_do_read().

Larry