Hi,
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:55:50AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > It's likely that old cards still work with v4 firmware, but we don't know
> > and
> > it has to be tested.
> >
> > Care to do so?
>
> I'll check the revision of my 4306, but
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 17:51 +0100, Martin Langer wrote:
> Yep. We have all kinds of firmware with the new instruction set. It's
> only ucode2 (old instruction set) that's missing. But the later ucode4
> which also uses the old instruction set is available in v4.
> OTOH, ucode13 isn't available i
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:19:13PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 16:13 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 February 2007 16:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:40 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:18, Johannes
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 16:13 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2007 16:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:40 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:18, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 06:55 +0100, Michael Buesch
On Thursday 15 February 2007 16:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:40 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:18, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 06:55 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's likely that old cards still work with
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:40 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:18, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 06:55 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> > > It's likely that old cards still work with v4 firmware,
> >
> > No, it's absolutely impossible. Rev 2/4 cores
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 14:18, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 06:55 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > It's likely that old cards still work with v4 firmware,
>
> No, it's absolutely impossible. Rev 2/4 cores have a totally different
> instruction set in the microcode.
Ok, I
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 06:55 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> It's likely that old cards still work with v4 firmware,
No, it's absolutely impossible. Rev 2/4 cores have a totally different
instruction set in the microcode.
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message par
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 14:55 -0500, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> Well, here's the problem. There are a few places where a value is
> changed (different value written to a register). Does this mean
> that the value is different due to the uCode changes (can't tell, no
> documentation)?
From what I'v
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 21:32 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:26:25PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> > My plan is to continue to maintain bcm43xx-SoftMAC for at least the BPHY
> > and 4306 revisions even
> > after d80211 becomes the in-kernel driver. Of course, I hope tha
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:55:50AM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> We don't know.
>
> It's likely that old cards still work with v4 firmware, but we don't know and
> it has to be tested.
>
> Care to do so?
I'll check the revision of my 4306, but I think it's probably too new to
be useful, unfor
On Friday 09 February 2007 22:32, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:26:25PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> > My plan is to continue to maintain bcm43xx-SoftMAC for at least the BPHY
> > and 4306 revisions even
> > after d80211 becomes the in-kernel driver. Of course, I hope that
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:32:39PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:26:25PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> > My plan is to continue to maintain bcm43xx-SoftMAC for at least the BPHY
> > and 4306 revisions even
> > after d80211 becomes the in-kernel driver. Of course, I h
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:26:25PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> My plan is to continue to maintain bcm43xx-SoftMAC for at least the BPHY and
> 4306 revisions even
> after d80211 becomes the in-kernel driver. Of course, I hope that we will
> have found the killer bugs
> by that time, and that mai
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:55, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 09 February 2007 20:05, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> >>> I'll agree to that as long as there is a clear indication of any
> >>> differences between V3 and V4 firmware.
> >> That's also part of the problem. With t
This is correct. Why do you think it's a specs bug?
Because
a) The old one made more sense to me.
b) Write MMIO register 0x3? I mean. What is that?
Could this be PHY or radio register 0x3?
Apologies. You are correct that this should be PHY Register 0x3,
not MMIO offset 0x3. I've correc
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:05, Joseph Jezak wrote:
I'll agree to that as long as there is a clear indication of any differences
between V3 and V4 firmware.
That's also part of the problem. With the v4 driver, Broadcom
dropped support for a number of older BPHY devices
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:17, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> >
> > The specs are unclear at this point:
> > "Write the value to the offset"
> > Offset in which register type?
>
> PHY Register. I've clarified it in the specs, I think this was said
> before, I made it worse when I cleaned it up.
>
>
Joe,
Joseph Jezak wrote:
> That's also part of the problem. With the v4 driver, Broadcom dropped
> support for a number of older BPHY devices (4301/4303 and some 4306
> revisions). Do we still want to support those? Should I continue
> writing the specs for the uCode revision it's based on or
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:05, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> > I'll agree to that as long as there is a clear indication of any
> > differences between V3 and V4 firmware.
>
> That's also part of the problem. With the v4 driver, Broadcom
> dropped support for a number of older BPHY devices (4301/430
The specs are unclear at this point:
"Write the value to the offset"
Offset in which register type?
PHY Register. I've clarified it in the specs, I think this was said
before, I made it worse when I cleaned it up.
// Initialization
- if (phy->version == 0) {
+ if (phy->
I'll agree to that as long as there is a clear indication of any differences
between V3 and V4 firmware.
That's also part of the problem. With the v4 driver, Broadcom
dropped support for a number of older BPHY devices (4301/4303 and
some 4306 revisions). Do we still want to support those?
On Friday 09 February 2007 19:21, Larry Finger wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Friday 09 February 2007 23:22, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> >>> Well, I don't review the rest until you say to which specs you did the
> >>> changes. ;)
> >> http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/B5PHY
> >>
> >> Larry was wo
On Friday 09 February 2007 17:32, Larry Finger wrote:
> The specifications for the bcm43xx driver have been modified. This patch
> incorporates these changes in the code, which results in the BCM4311 and
> BCM4312 working. The name of one of the PHY parameters, previously known
> as "version", has
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 23:22, Joseph Jezak wrote:
>>> Well, I don't review the rest until you say to which specs you did the
>>> changes. ;)
>> http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/B5PHY
>>
>> Larry was working from the old specs, so when I updated it, I only
>> updated t
Michael,
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 09 February 2007 17:32, Larry Finger wrote:
>> The specifications for the bcm43xx driver have been modified. This patch
>> incorporates these changes in the code, which results in the BCM4311 and
>> BCM4312 working. The name of one of the PHY parameters,
> dprintk(KERN_INFO PFX "Detected PHY: Version: %x, Type %x,
Revision %x\n",
You should change this too, the "Version" text should read "Analog"
instead.
-Joe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo inf
On Friday 09 February 2007 23:22, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> > Well, I don't review the rest until you say to which specs you did the
> > changes. ;)
>
> http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/B5PHY
>
> Larry was working from the old specs, so when I updated it, I only
> updated the old specs. I'll fix
Well, I don't review the rest until you say to which specs you did the changes.
;)
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/B5PHY
Larry was working from the old specs, so when I updated it, I only
updated the old specs. I'll fix the v4 specs soon.
-Joe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Friday 09 February 2007 17:32, Larry Finger wrote:
> The specifications for the bcm43xx driver have been modified. This patch
> incorporates these changes in the code, which results in the BCM4311 and
> BCM4312 working. The name of one of the PHY parameters, previously known
> as "version", has
The specifications for the bcm43xx driver have been modified. This patch
incorporates these changes in the code, which results in the BCM4311 and
BCM4312 working. The name of one of the PHY parameters, previously known
as "version", has been changed to "analog core version" .
Signed-off-by: Larry
31 matches
Mail list logo
