On 03/07/2012 12:23 AM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
On 03/06/2012 01:26 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
BCMA shared a structure with SSB in which sprom data was stored. This
could have been appropriate but with upcoming srom revisions that are
of no interest to SSB it is better to have own definitions with BCMA.
This patch adds support for srom revisions 8 and 9.
Will sprom version 10 contain many new or different attributes so the
struct has to be extended a lot in comparison to the changes made from
version 8 to 9?
For version 10 there are only a couple of new attributes, but version 11
is a major overhaul. Initially, I intended to have the bcma_sprom
structure contain a union of revision specific structs, but the flat
ssb_sprom structure made me reconsider. Looking at the current size of
bcma_sprom I am tempted to move back to the original union solution.
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel<arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
The BCMA structure is based on internal specifications. Therefor the structure
fields are not matching the SSB sprom structure. By dropping the use of the SSB
sprom structure in BCMA a fair amount of work is needed in b43 driver. If it
helps I can provide a mapping between bcma_sprom and ssb_sprom structure members.
The bcm47xx architecture code will not compile with this patch either.
A quick look into b43 showed that it uses the boardflags flags all other
the code and the other stuff in most cases just in some initialization
function of the specific phy so it should be manageable to use a
different sprom strcut for bcma. Is there any other PHY than the N-PHY
that is used with ssb and bcma?
I believe all AXI chips are having some flavour of N-PHY (or 11ac).
Gr. AvS
--
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
