From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:35822 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753894Ab0IVOdB (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:33:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-2.6] iwlwifi: do not perferm force reset while doing scan From: "Guy, Wey-Yi" To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , Johannes Berg In-Reply-To: <20100922105722.3be42969@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <1284758657-25267-1-git-send-email-wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com> <20100922105722.3be42969@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:33:50 -0700 Message-ID: <1285166030.12056.19.camel@wwguy-huron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Gruszka, On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 01:57 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > Hi Wey > > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:24:17 -0700 > Wey-Yi Guy wrote: > > When uCode error condition detected, driver try to perform either > > rf reset or firmware reload in order bring device back to > > working condition. > > > > If rf reset is required and scan is in process, there is no need > > to issue rf reset since scan already reset the rf. > > Yes, and that is already handled by iwl_scan_initiate(). > > > If firmware reload is required and scan is in process, skip the > > reload request. There is a possibility firmware reload during > > scan cause problem. > > If we skip restart request now, next will be scheduled lately (correct?, That is correct, if we still encounter the problem. > I think there are firmware reset requests that are not repeatable). But we > still will have scan pending since firmware is in bad shape and will not > finish scan. So until scan_check delayed work (7s) will not finish scan, > will not be able to reset firmware. I do not think that is what we want. > I think patch is good for .36, but after my current scan patches, it is > not be needed and actually it should be reverted (see below). > Agree, with your recent patch, it improve a lot on how scan abort work. I still don't like the warning, but like you say, it might be ok since we reloading firmware. I will ask John to revert the patch Thanks Wey