On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers.
My plan was to rename bcm43xx-mac80211 to b43, so
you could probably rename bcm4301 to b43-legacy or something
shorter like b43-leg or maybe even b43-old.
I think if bcm43xx will be
Michael Buesch wrote:
It turns out that it's better to extend the device
support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse
engineering the newer bcm drivers.
Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref 5
anymore. So I suggest we support 5 devices with the legacy
driver
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:07 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:00:47 Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers.
My plan was to rename bcm43xx-mac80211 to b43, so
you could
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:21:09 Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:07 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:00:47 Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 15:41 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
So, that said, I want to rename all the drivers.
My
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:46:40 Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref 5
anymore. So I suggest we support 5 devices with the legacy
driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware
with upstream
On Thursday 09 August 2007 16:09:53 Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
It turns out that it's better to extend the device
support in bcm4301 due to more difficulties in reverse
engineering the newer bcm drivers.
Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref 5
Michael Buesch wrote:
Newer drivers don't contain support for wireless core ref 5
anymore. So I suggest we support 5 devices with the legacy
driver using v3 firmware. And anything above with v4 firmware
with upstream bcm43xx-mac80211.
That's actually a nice cutoff point, as rev 5 is when
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though.
We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So
we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe
from ssb, so that either b43 or b43legacy is loaded.
I'll take
Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though.
We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So
we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and let us probe
from ssb, so that either b43 or
On Thursday 09 August 2007, Larry Finger wrote:
Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 16:52 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
There will be a problem with the PCI IDs, though.
We can't see from the PCI ID if that's a v4 or v5 device. So
we have to make _one_ common ssb-pci wrapper and
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 08:33:52PM +0200, Martin Langer wrote:
I wouldn't call it b43. Please add some letters here.
BCM is still developing their bcm43xx platform. So it's possible that we
will find another point in the future where we have to split b43 again.
b43 is more a common name
11 matches
Mail list logo
