On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:47:28PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
[snip]

Hi Saul,

I was still planning to come back to your reply on August 14. Just
wanted to reply to this patch as I still feel it is a bad thing to
open up the sprom as a whole. I can see the use-cases you mentioned
as useful, but maybe we can get a specific solution for that.

Gr. AvS

Hi Arend!

Apologies for forking the discussion. I just wasn't sure that any more replies
would be forthcoming.

I'm curious why you feel it's a "bad" thing to open up the sprom as a whole. I
see a number of distinct advantages to it; most prominently, that it allows
for the use of existing tools and processes. I can find several examples of 
end-users attempting to modify the sprom on bcma devices using the 
instructions from b43-tools ([1][2][3]), and suggest that it would be 
confusing to those users were the procedures for sprom-modification through 
bcma substantially different than the procedures through ssb.

That said, I do recognize that this functionality is potentially dangerous in
some circumstances. I'd considered hiding it behind a non-default module 
parameter-- would that assuage your concerns? Alternatively, if you have 
specific solutions in mind for the use-cases previously discussed, I'm very
interested in knowing them.

-saul

[1] http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1830739
[2] http://www.tonymacx86.com/network/25669-rebranding-bcm94322mc-based-prasys-guide-what-device-id-8.html#post291328
[3] http://www.tonymacx86.com/network/26904-help-rebrand-broadcom-bcm94322-5.html