On Monday 05 November 2007 17:03:47 Larry Finger wrote: > u8 path_data0[SPROM_PATH_DATA_SIZE]; > u8 path_data1 ... > > where SPROM_PATH_DATA_SIZE = 0x26. Once we see how the data are used, it may > make more sense to have > these data be u16,
> or even a union so that we can have it both ways. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Whoops, endianess broken :) > I'm not sure we need a separate "valid bit" for path data. In the sprom that > we are working with, Ok, even better then. The "valid bit" was just an idea for stuff in the sprom which cannot be determined valid or not in another way. > As I said earlier, my current patch is working OK for present needs. Once we > come to an agreement > regarding the sprom data structures, I will begin implementing them. As I see > it, conversion will be > a 3-step process. We will need a patch to add the new structure, a second to > populate that > structure, patches to convert b44, b43, and b43legacy to use the new data, > and a final patch to > remove the old structure. In this manner, bisection will be supported. cool :) Are you going to try a redesign of the structure? I'm not too motivated to do it, as I don't know too much about the v4 sprom, yet. -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev