Hi, that's interesting.
> BTW there's another misuse in ath10k-caldata: All ath10k eeproms have > checksum fields and should use ath10k_patch_mac_crc, ath10k_patch_mac > exists only because ath10k firmware doesn't verify it. So, let me repeat this to check whether I understood it: From a technical perspective, it would be correct to change all ath10kcal_patch_mac to ath10kcal_patch_mac_crc (on all targets with ath10k exists). This would ensure the correct checksum in the firmware file. From a practical perspective, it does not matter which function is used, because the checksum is not evaluated. So one could use either ath10kcal_patch_mac or ath10kcal_patch_mac_crc in all cases and would get the same result (in terms of functionality). ? Best Adrian > > Regards, > Chuanhong Guo > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
