"use your own bmi ids". :-) (yeah, this is going to make open source firmware for these things more painful than it should be. :( )
-adrian On 7 March 2017 at 01:54, Sven Eckelmann <sven.eckelm...@openmesh.com> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
