On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 17:44 +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote: > 2010/11/18 Michael BÃsch <mb@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> [ 1036.293865] ssb: Unsupported SPROM revision 255 detected. Will extract v1 > > > > So what about specialcasing 255 instead of defaulting to 1 in general? > > > > if (rev == 255) > > rev = 1; > > > > 255 basically means "Vendor forgot to set this field". So it would only > > default to 1 for those broken sproms. > > Will work as long as there won't appear new vendor who will forget to > set this and will use new SPROM... The old code will break for that, too. > But hopefully it won't happen and it should not hurt too much to > register device with incorrectly parsed SPROM. If it would really succeed to initialize the device, this would be a regulatory issue, because the sprom contains various power amplifier calibration data. I think it should rather fail and be fixed correctly instead of incorrectly using rev1 in that case. -- Greetings Michael. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
