On 19-08-17 22:02, Ian Molton wrote:
On 07/08/17 18:51, Ian Molton wrote:
On 07/08/17 12:25, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken
anyway
we can ignore that.
Please explain why you think it is broken.
Not got the code to hand right now,
On 07/08/17 18:51, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 07/08/17 12:25, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>>> Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken
>>> anyway
>>> we can ignore that.
>>
>> Please explain why you think it is broken.
>
> Not got the code to hand right now, but from memory, the
On 07/08/17 12:25, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken
>> anyway
>> we can ignore that.
>
> Please explain why you think it is broken.
Not got the code to hand right now, but from memory, theres a trapdoor
case where the state can wind up
On 26-07-17 22:25, Ian Molton wrote:
This function is obfuscating how IO works on this chip. Remove it
and push its logic into brcmf_sdiod_reg_{read,write}().
Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken anyway
we can ignore that.
Please explain why you think it is broke
This function is obfuscating how IO works on this chip. Remove it
and push its logic into brcmf_sdiod_reg_{read,write}().
Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken anyway
we can ignore that.
Signed-off-by: Ian Molton
# Conflicts:
# drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b
This function is obfuscating how IO works on this chip. Remove it
and push its logic into brcmf_sdiod_reg_{read,write}().
Handling of -ENOMEDIUM is altered, but as that's pretty much broken anyway
we can ignore that.
Signed-off-by: Ian Molton
---
.../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.
