Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: wireless: bcm43xx: big_buffer_sem semaphore to mutex

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Saturday, 15 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:51:47 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 14 of December 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Friday 14 December 2007 13:59:54 Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote:
> > > > > This user did get the following messages in dmesg:
> > > > > 
> > > > > b43err(dev->wl, "Firmware file \"%s\" not found "
> > > > >        "or load failed.\n", path);
> > > > 
> > > > So the question seems to be why b43 needs version 4, when b43legacy and
> > > > bcm43x uses version 3?
> > > 
> > > That's really a question, right?
> > > 
> > > Well. linux-2.4 doesn't work with the linux-2.6 modutils.
> > > Windows Vista doesn't work with Windows 98 device drivers.
> > > That leads to this assumption:
> > > b43 doesn't work with version 3 firmware but needs version 4.
> > > 
> > > Newer drivers supporting newer hardware need newer firmware.
> > 
> > Actually, can you explain why, from the technical point of view, the version 4
> > firware is better than version 3, please?
> 
> version 4 is the new firmware released by broadcom. They obviously won't
> support and write any version 3 firmware anymore. So we are forced to
> switch to version 4 firmware to support the newest hardware (like N-PHY
> in the future). It's really as simple as that.

I see, thanks.

> The difference between v3 and v4 is basically the driver API. It changed
> a lot and it is nontrivial to support both v3 and v4 in one driver.
> So we decided to stay with v3 for legacy devices and take v4 for any newer
> devices.

This is reasonable, yes.

> We have to live with that crap until someone comes up with an opensource
> firmware. :) 

Well, the only problem with that is I suspect there are some "newer" cards that
work better with v3 firmware, although they are supposed to support both.

Greetings,
Rafael