W dniu 9 lutego 2011 21:17 uÅytkownik Michael BÃsch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ: > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 21:00 +0100, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote: >> Michael: was there any reasons why we didn't implement some parts of >> core-disabling code? > > The function are complete as of latest reverse engineering efforts. > Broadcom added stuff, if they do more stuff in latest code. Nothing has changed in specs since 2006: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/Backplane?action=info For some reason routines that were present even in 2006 was not implemented. >> Michael: should we care about the way wl sets core specific flags? I >> didn't dig into that moment in MMIO dumps, but as ssb_device_enable >> implementation ignores flags at the end, it has to set flags somehow >> differently on it's own. > > I have no idea. ssb_device_enable is very hairy and I'm not going > to touch it without good reason and regression testing. > > You didn't tell us the important part: Does changing ssb_device_enable > make it work? I've just written missing parts, tested and it still does not work :| The only advantage discovered so far is that ssb detects sth is wrong with IM state: [ 2661.449647] ssb: Timeout waiting for bitmask 01800000 on register 0F90 to clear. I can see wl experiencing the same problems after loading b43. It reads 0xf90 dozen of times in a row. -- RafaÅ -- 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
