netdev - Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix code for spec changes of 2/7/2007

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200702092130.38997.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:	Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:30:38 +0100
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	bcm43xx-dev@...ts.berlios.de
Cc:	Joseph Jezak <josejx@...too.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Larry Finger <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix code for spec changes of 2/7/2007

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 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 
> >> should I combine them?
> > 
> > If it's easily possible, please try to combine the old stuff
> > with the new v4 specs.
> > I think it's basically only dropped if() branches, right?
> > 
> 
> 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)?  Is it applicable to all revisions (can't tell, some 
> revisions are not supported in this version)?  If the revision 
> number range in a check changes is that because of a difference in 
> supported cards or a bug fix?
> 
> So, it's not as simple as just dropped if() branches.  I can do my 
> best to combine them (I have done some of this already), but I can't 
> promise that it'll be accurate for all revisions or versions of the 
> chipset.

Ok, I see.
How many of these old devices exist and who has access to them?
If we want to combine stuff, we really must test it on these devices then.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html