From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mms2.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.18]:1297 "EHLO mms2.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753169Ab2CGHqO (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:46:14 -0500 Message-ID: <4F571236.7070608@broadcom.com> (sfid-20120307_084617_660481_345BFEB8) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:45:58 +0100 From: "Arend van Spriel" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hauke Mehrtens" cc: "Rafal Milecki" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , b43-dev-list Subject: Re: [RFC] bcma: replace ssb_sprom structure with bcma_sprom structure References: <1331036818-9240-1-git-send-email-arend@broadcom.com> <4F569C78.90204@hauke-m.de> In-Reply-To: <4F569C78.90204@hauke-m.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/07/2012 12:23 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: > On 03/06/2012 01:26 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> BCMA shared a structure with SSB in which sprom data was stored. This >> could have been appropriate but with upcoming srom revisions that are >> of no interest to SSB it is better to have own definitions with BCMA. >> >> This patch adds support for srom revisions 8 and 9. > > Will sprom version 10 contain many new or different attributes so the > struct has to be extended a lot in comparison to the changes made from > version 8 to 9? > For version 10 there are only a couple of new attributes, but version 11 is a major overhaul. Initially, I intended to have the bcma_sprom structure contain a union of revision specific structs, but the flat ssb_sprom structure made me reconsider. Looking at the current size of bcma_sprom I am tempted to move back to the original union solution. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel >> --- >> The BCMA structure is based on internal specifications. Therefor the structure >> fields are not matching the SSB sprom structure. By dropping the use of the SSB >> sprom structure in BCMA a fair amount of work is needed in b43 driver. If it >> helps I can provide a mapping between bcma_sprom and ssb_sprom structure members. > The bcm47xx architecture code will not compile with this patch either. > > A quick look into b43 showed that it uses the boardflags flags all other > the code and the other stuff in most cases just in some initialization > function of the specific phy so it should be manageable to use a > different sprom strcut for bcma. Is there any other PHY than the N-PHY > that is used with ssb and bcma? I believe all AXI chips are having some flavour of N-PHY (or 11ac). Gr. AvS