Hi Arend, ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 22nd, 2022 at 11:36, Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/21/2022 3:18 PM, Danny van Heumen wrote: > > > Hi Arend, > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Tuesday, June 21st, 2022 at 09:41, Arend van Spriel arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > [..] > > > > > > Maybe overlooked, but I have not seen a patch from you on the > > > linux-wireless list. Do you have reference, ie. URL or Message-ID? > > > > I'm not sure what's most convenient here, but here's an archive link: > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=165547582612979 > > > > Message-ID: ThT2jwvySn9tFQm9FxrlPNMQkiGUnx_87cOhmmeexoVOFZqOkpjmAntCWG- > > kIBMj2830LHZaOULlJxQKiRXkVtGYrrT8rBaB7R65qjIinYo= () dannyvanheumen ! nl > > > Found it. Had to check my gmail account instead of my work account. > > > You haven't commented yet on my question regarding definition macro for the clm_blob. > > I intend to send a patch for it, because I believe at the very least some parts of distribution > > processes rely on these firmware entries. It would be good if you can confirm. > > > The clm_blob is optional unless the firmware image was built without any > clm data. If that is the case for 43456 (I think it is not) than it > should be reflected with BRCMF_FW_CLM_DEF(). Otherwise it is fine as it > is right now. Okay. I checked a few of the binary blobs, some are built with and some are built without (`strings` gives me a line with 'noclm' in it or with 'clm' and some revision/identifier) This is a bit of guessing on my part. I will leave it as is then. Regards, Danny
