Hi Adrian, On Montag, 30. Januar 2017 08:36:19 CET Adrian Chadd wrote: > If people aren't using unique BMI IDs (which is another question we > have for QCA) then it's possible you don't have enough information to > "know" which board data to use, so it has to be overridden by a custom > package. We do this at work for our own boards as well - they're > sufficiently different to a reference board that indeed we need to > "know".
Did you get any feedback from QCA? Our requests regarding registration of two
own bmi-board-ids for our product were always answered (slightly simplified)
with "don't change the BDF files", "always use board-2.bin from driver/
firmware" and "ask your ODM". This basically didn't help us and didn't answer
the question and creates quite a big problem for us because the ODM insists
that we should use his BDF [1] files with modifications [tm]. We just found
out that the ODM used a modified version of the DK04.1 BDF files but used the
bmi-board-id's for the AP-DK01.1-C1 - so we still have a long road ahead.
We are still trying to get more information. But I though that I could ask you
in the meantime whether you had more success and have a status update.
Kind regards,
Sven
[1] According to QCA, the BDF files are just the single board files inside
the board-2.bin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
