Florian Fainelli wrote: > Le Friday 12 December 2008 02:25:00 Michael Buesch, vous avez écrit : >> On Friday 12 December 2008 01:59:48 [email protected] wrote: >> > Added: >> > branches/8.09/target/linux/brcm47xx/patches-2.6.25/211-b44_bcm4713_phy.pa >> >tch =================================================================== >> > --- >> > branches/8.09/target/linux/brcm47xx/patches-2.6.25/211-b44_bcm4713_phy.pa >> >tch (rev 0) +++ >> > branches/8.09/target/linux/brcm47xx/patches-2.6.25/211-b44_bcm4713_phy.pa >> >tch 2008-12-12 00:59:47 UTC (rev 13610) @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ >> > +--- a/drivers/net/b44.c 2008-11-16 15:33:32.000000000 +0100 >> > ++++ b/drivers/net/b44.c 2008-11-18 10:36:18.000000000 +0100 >> > +@@ -2094,6 +2094,11 @@ >> > + return -EINVAL; >> > + } >> > + >> > ++ if (bp->sdev->id.coreid == 0x806 && bp->sdev->id.revision == 0x0) { >> > ++ bp->phy_addr = B44_PHY_ADDR_NO_PHY; >> > ++ bp->dma_offset = 0; >> > ++ } >> > ++ >> >> this is a little bit weird. >> coreid == 0x806 will always be true. >> So you will always set phy_addr to NO_PHY for every device with core >> revision 0. That smells like incorrect code to me... > > I tested it with success on an Asus WL500G Deluxe. Will do more testing on a > WRT54GS. I also think that code is wrong. Whether the device has a PHY connected or not depends on the actual board, not the chip. So PHY related checks should probably depend on some nvram values and should be #ifdef'd for CONFIG_BRCM47xx
- Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
