Al 02/07/11 20:49, En/na Luca Olivetti ha escrit:
> Al 02/07/11 20:34, En/na John Crispin ha escrit:
>> On 02/07/11 20:15, Luca Olivetti wrote:
>>> Al 02/07/11 19:58, En/na Florian Fainelli ha escrit:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 0) @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>>>> +--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_def.c 2011-02-08
>>>>> 17:33:42.000000000 +0100 ++++
>>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_def.c 2011-02-20
>>>>> 17:51:47.000000000 +0100 +@@ -147,7 +152,7 @@
>>>>> + return false;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +- if (!ath9k_hw_use_flash(ah)) {
>>>>> ++ if (1) {
>>>>>
>>>> This looks wrong.
>>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> See http://patchwork.openwrt.org/patch/849/ for the previous discussion.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>> because it will break devices which dont have the eeprom inside the flash
>
> Are you sure?
> Mind me, I could be wrong, but looking at eeprom.c:
>
> int ath9k_hw_eeprom_init(struct ath_hw *ah)
> {
> int status;
>
> if (AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah))
> ah->eep_ops = &eep_ar9300_ops;
> else if (AR_SREV_9287(ah)) {
> ah->eep_ops = &eep_ar9287_ops;
> } else if (AR_SREV_9285(ah) || AR_SREV_9271(ah)) {
> ah->eep_ops = &eep_4k_ops;
> } else {
> ah->eep_ops = &eep_def_ops;
> }
>
> if (!ah->eep_ops->fill_eeprom(ah))
> return -EIO;
>
> status = ah->eep_ops->check_eeprom(ah);
>
> return status;
> }
>
> So when it reaches check_eeprom (where the endianness check is done),
> it has already called fill_eeprom, which copies the data in ram,
> so it shouldn't matter if the device has an onboard eeprom or uses the flash
> to
> emulate it.
> Felix said that the endianness check should be done unconditionally, maybe
> he knows better.
So, what's the final decision?
Should I forget about ath9k support on this board?
Bye
--
Luca
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
