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 a
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 addres
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 revisio
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) Remo
