On Friday 23 November 2007 06:36:55 Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
partially acked.
Though, I'm not quite sure yet why you remove that
address extension bits. The specs clearly say that they _are_ there.
And it makes sense to use them, as two bytes of the address are used
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 22:38:12 Larry Finger wrote:
The BCM94311MCG rev 02 chip has an 802.11 core with revision 13 and
has not been supported until now. The changes include the following:
(1) Add the 802.11 rev 13 device to the ssb_device_id table to load b43.
(2) Add PHY revision 9
Michael Buesch wrote:
partially acked.
Though, I'm not quite sure yet why you remove that
address extension bits. The specs clearly say that they _are_ there.
And it makes sense to use them, as two bytes of the address are used
for the routing stuff. So the highest 2 bits of the address
The BCM94311MCG rev 02 chip has an 802.11 core with revision 13 and
has not been supported until now. The changes include the following:
(1) Add the 802.11 rev 13 device to the ssb_device_id table to load b43.
(2) Add PHY revision 9 to the supported list.
(3) Fix 64-bit addressing errors.
(4)
