Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:35677 "EHLO mail-ww0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751960Ab0KCVwH (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:52:07 -0400 Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so1951823wwi.1 for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CD1D99D.5070501@lwfinger.net> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:52:29 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBCw7xzY2g=?= CC: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , b43-dev@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ssb: workarounds: be verbose about hacking SPROM revision, don't duplicate code References: <1288818386-25073-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> (sfid-20101103_220727_407923_69716152) <1288820625.7368.117.camel@maggie> In-Reply-To: <1288820625.7368.117.camel@maggie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/03/2010 04:43 PM, Michael Büsch wrote: > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:06 +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> + default: >> + ssb_printk(KERN_WARNING PFX "Unsupported SPROM" >> + " revision %d detected. Will extract" >> + " v1\n", out->revision); >> + out->revision = 1; >> + sprom_extract_r123(out, in); > > I think we should change this to throw a hard error if the sprom is > unknown. Extracting r123 is unlikely to do any good these days. > This workaround was only useful back in the days where 95% of the > cards out there were r123. But today that's not the case. > >> } >> >> if (out->boardflags_lo == 0xFFFF) In any case, the out->revision = 1 statement should be before the ssb_printk() call. I agree - throw a hard error. Larry