Sam Leffler wrote:
> I don't see how to verify the image being loaded is appropriate for
> the operating mode. The old fw header had a mode field (0 bss, 1
> ibss, 2 monitor) but the new one does not--unless it's encoded in the
> version field?
The filename alone indicates the mode with the new
--- Begin Message ---
I don't see how to verify the image being loaded is appropriate for the
operating mode. The old fw header had a mode field (0 bss, 1 ibss, 2
monitor) but the new one does not--unless it's encoded in the version field?
Sam
--- End Message ---
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:34:31PM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
>
>
>>From: James Ketrenos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 03:22:28 +0000 (+0800)
>>
>>[PATCH 15/16] ipw2200: switch to the new ipw2200-fw-3.0 image format
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:34:31PM +0800, Zhu Yi wrote:
>
> From: James Ketrenos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 03:22:28 + (+0800)
>
> [PATCH 15/16] ipw2200: switch to the new ipw2200-fw-3.0 image format
>
> This patch modifies the driver to suppo
From: James Ketrenos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 03:22:28 + (+0800)
[PATCH 15/16] ipw2200: switch to the new ipw2200-fw-3.0 image format
This patch modifies the driver to support the ipw2200-fw-3.0 image format.
The 3.0 fw image does not add any new capabilities, bu
