On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 10:36 -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > Current code defaults to SPROM revision 1 if there is a CRC error. In at > least one known case, most of the corrupt contents are reasonable and > it is possible to extract the correct MAC address and TX power settings > from what is read. With this patch, an attempt is made to match the > apparent revision number with certain SPROM signatures. For those revisions > without such a feature, a reasonable guess is made. If the apparent > revision is invalid, or if the signature does not match, the previous > behavior is kept. > > Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <[email protected]> > --- > > John, > > Could you please test this patch with your card? > > Thanks, > > Larry > --- > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/ssb/pci.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/ssb/pci.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/ssb/pci.c > @@ -620,6 +620,7 @@ static int ssb_pci_sprom_get(struct ssb_ > const struct ssb_sprom *fallback; > int err = -ENOMEM; > u16 *buf; > + u16 revision; > > if (!ssb_is_sprom_available(bus)) { > ssb_printk(KERN_ERR PFX "No SPROM available!\n"); > @@ -671,6 +672,50 @@ static int ssb_pci_sprom_get(struct ssb_ > } > ssb_printk(KERN_WARNING PFX "WARNING: Invalid" > " SPROM CRC (corrupt SPROM)\n"); > + /* At this point, we have a faulty SPROM image. > + * In case only part of it is corrupt, try to > + * determine what rev we might have */ > + revision = buf[SSB_SPROMSIZE_WORDS_R4 - 1] & 0x00FF;
I think this could possibly overrun the buffer, or did I get something wrong? -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
