On Monday 04 January 2010 23:34:19 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? >
Well, just do the thing that makes most sense. In general we all agree that we should _not_ implement crap, just because broadcom does so, if we can do better. So, in this case, if we can do a subfunction call and that function does make sense, we should do so for the sake of readability (I didn't look into detail, though.). Same goes for algorithms and stuff. If we realize that we can do better, do _not_ implement Broadcrap and instead implement a better version. -- Greetings, Michael. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
