On 12/02/2010 04:15 PM, Michael Büsch wrote: > 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?
At this point, we have gotten a CRC error with the small SPROM and expanded the memory for the 440 byte size, and gotten a second CRC error. This test will be OK here. Larry _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
