On 11/18/2010 11:07 AM, Michael BÃsch wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 11:02 -0600, Larry Finger wrote: >> On 11/18/2010 10:47 AM, Michael BÃsch wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I agree that it is better to fail than use incorrect power data. >> >> Would it be useful if the SPROM data were logged when the revision is crap? > > > We need to keep in mind that there will be no new SSB devices. > It seems pretty much EOL'ed by Broadcom. > So I'm not sure whether this would be of any use or just random dead > code. Good point. When we get the data for the one case we know exists, we will have a better idea if a special quirk for this case is feasible. Assuming that this is not the only example of this hardware, then we might limit the breakage from this patch. At least the random code would be needed and useful in keeping our maintainer happy, which has a some merit. Larry -- 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
