Re: [PATCH 2/2] bcma: expose cc sprom to sysfs
From: Larry Finger <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-23 20:53:35
On 08/23/2012 02:44 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
2012/8/17 Arend van Spriel [off-list ref]:quoted
On 08/16/2012 09:06 PM, Saul St. John wrote:quoted
On BCMA devices with a ChipCommon core of revision 31 or higher, the device SPROM can be accessed through CC core registers. This patch exposes the SPROM on such devices for read/write access as a sysfs attribute. Tested on a MacBookPro8,2 with BCM4331. Cc: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> Cc: John W. Linville <redacted> Signed-off-by: Saul St. John <redacted>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.I agree with Arend's doubts, on the other hand it would be nice to provide some workaround for that stupid HP wifi blacklisting. Providing a way to overwrite just a vendor is really close to allowing overwriting anything. In that case we probably should just allow writing whole SPROM... Which again, is sth some want to avoid. I wonder if we could write some user-space tool for writing SPROM. Accessing ChipCommon registers is quite trivial, the thing I'm not familiar with is accessing PCIE Wifi card registers. I know there are tools for accessing GPU card regs. They work really well, I wonder if we can use the same method for Wifi cards? If so, we could write user-space app and keep this out of kernel. Maybe we could even extend that tool to cover ssb cards and drop SPROM on SSB writing support from kernel?
This idea sounds good to me. The only valid use of the ssb SPROM writing was when we found some G-PHY cards that had the BT compatibility setting wrong. Now there is a set of quirks that eliminate that need for rewriting the SPROM. With a separate utility, we can control what parameters can be changed. The vendor codes are one possibility. What else would be useful? I have seen changing the MAC address be mentioned, but I would argue against that. There are too many possibilities for misuse. Larry