Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On > Behalf Of David Bauer > Sent: Mittwoch, 18. September 2019 17:04 > To: Adrian Schmutzler <m...@adrianschmutzler.de> > Cc: openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org; 'Chuanhong Guo' <gch981...@gmail.com>; > 'Sebastian Kemper' <sebastian...@gmx.net>; > 'Christian Lamparter' <chunk...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Negative offset for checksum in ath79's > 10-ath9k-eeprom > > Hello Adrian, > > On 9/18/19 4:54 PM, Adrian Schmutzler wrote: > > 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). > > ath10kcal_patch_mac_crc is not nearly as old as ath10kcal_patch_mac. > ath10kcal_patch_mac_crc is a requirement for 2nd generation > 802.11ac chips which require a bdf in addition to the eeprom-caldata. First > generation chips do not have this requirement.
Okay. I think I will add a migration to crc for the ath10k functions to my caldata-unification patchset. I will resend that one anyway after my recent fixes (checksum hex2dec and ath9k crc fix) are merged. Best Adrian > > Best wishes > David > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
