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
