W dniu 4 stycznia 2010 23:43 użytkownik Larry Finger <larry.fin...@lwfinger.net> napisał: > On 01/04/2010 04:34 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> W dniu 4 stycznia 2010 21:36 użytkownik Rafał Miłecki >> <zaj...@gmail.com> napisał: >>> Next there is a lot of code after "b43_nphy_workarounds(dev);" call >>> that I can not recognize. Let's just take some lines for example: >>> b43_nphy_reset_cca(dev); >> >> Actually specs still tell about resetting CCA, but that is done (in >> specs) without call to separated function (just part of init code): >> 29. Read PHY Register 0x01 and save in val >> 30. Write val | 0x4000 to PHY Register 0x1 >> 31. Write val & 0xBFFF to PHY Register 0x1 >> >> Should I strictly follow specs (put CCA reset directly in init code) >> or should I keep b43_nphy_reset_cca function and just modify if to >> match current specs? > > As long as all the register read/writes are the same, it doesn't really > matter. > You get to do what you want. If you deviate from the specs, just throw in a > comment so that someone else knows what you did and why if looks different.
OK :) I'm new in low level programming so I wanted to ask first. Connecting that with implementation of RE specs makes me even more careful :) -- Rafał _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
