Bogus EEPROM checksum and now?

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36:56AM -0800, Stefan Bader wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:31:07AM -0800, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >> Stefan Bader wrote:
> >>> Hi Luis,
> >>>
> >>> ok this was somewhat to be expected when adding the patch to check for the
> >>> EEPROM checksum to stable[1]. The question is, is the a workable way to get that
> >>> fixed on the adapter or would it not have been better to have at least an option
> >>> to allow users to override it with the message that they cannot submit any
> >>> bugreports that get listened to?
> >> Note: I overlooked that this specific case was already fixed by a later patch
> >> that did not get into 2.6.31.y.
> >
> > Indeed, also AFAICT I did not push the EEPROM checksum into 2.6.31, was that
> > a patch you cherry picked in to 2.6.31 for Ubuntu?
> 
> I picked commit 359207c687cc8f4f9845c8dadd0d6dabad44e584
> Author: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez at atheros.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 4 10:40:39 2010 -0500
> 
>     ath5k: Fix eeprom checksum check for custom sized eeproms
> 
> which was mentioned in the bug report and also seems to be the only ath5k patch
> between adding the checksum code and HEAD that seems to be related. If I missed
> another one, please tell.

Nope that's all, that's the only other fix needed.

> >> Still generically it would be interesting what
> >> would be the approach if there is someone approaching with a invalid checksum.
> >
> > Just tell them their card is busted. There was indeed a bug in the checksum
> > computation, and I fixed that.
> >
> >> Are the EEPROMs to your knowledge simply be upgradeable by vendors (if they
> >> care) or would you think an override acceptable?
> >
> > They are programmed once, that's it. Its done by the ODMs based on samplying
> > of a card out of a group. The checksum shall never fail, the other OS drivers
> > also use this same checksum.
> 
> Thanks a lot for the explanations. Its good to know that.

No problem.

  Luis