*/
#include <linux/errno.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/string.h>
#include <asm/bug.h>
#include <asm/byteorder.h>
return cpu_to_be16(crc);
}
-#if 0
-/* Microsoft computes the CRC with the bytes in reverse order. Therefore we
- * have a special version of the CRC algorithm to account for their buggy
- * software. */
+/* Microsoft computes the CRC with the bytes in reverse order. */
static u16 csr1212_msft_crc16(const u32 *buffer, size_t length)
{
int shift;
return cpu_to_be16(crc);
}
-#endif
static struct csr1212_dentry *
csr1212_find_keyval(struct csr1212_keyval *dir, struct csr1212_keyval *kv)
return ret;
}
-#if 0
- /* Apparently there are too many differnt wrong implementations of the
- * CRC algorithm that verifying them is moot. */
+ /* Apparently there are many different wrong implementations of the CRC
+ * algorithm. We don't fail, we just warn. */
if ((csr1212_crc16(bi->data, bi->crc_length) != bi->crc) &&
(csr1212_msft_crc16(bi->data, bi->crc_length) != bi->crc))
- return -EINVAL;
-#endif
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "IEEE 1394 device has ROM CRC error\n");
cr = CSR1212_MALLOC(sizeof(*cr));
if (!cr)
&cache->data[bytes_to_quads(kv->offset - cache->offset)];
kvi_len = be16_to_cpu(kvi->length);
-#if 0
- /* Apparently there are too many differnt wrong implementations of the
- * CRC algorithm that verifying them is moot. */
+ /* Apparently there are many different wrong implementations of the CRC
+ * algorithm. We don't fail, we just warn. */
if ((csr1212_crc16(kvi->data, kvi_len) != kvi->crc) &&
- (csr1212_msft_crc16(kvi->data, kvi_len) != kvi->crc)) {
- ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
- }
-#endif
+ (csr1212_msft_crc16(kvi->data, kvi_len) != kvi->crc))
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "IEEE 1394 device has ROM CRC error\n");
switch (kv->key.type) {
case CSR1212_KV_TYPE_DIRECTORY: