From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172] helo=ns3.lanforge.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WFUP5-0002TO-R6 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:03:00 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.236] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s1HK2Zlt028599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:02:35 -0800 Message-ID: <53026ADB.2090206@candelatech.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 12:02:35 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Should TARGET_NUM_PEER_KEYS == WMI_MAX_KEY_INDEX + 1? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: ath10k Maybe this is the reason my firmware is running out of space for keys... When adding keys, the driver checks for index > WMI_MAX_KEY_INDEX (which is 3), but when configuring the firmware, TARGET_NUM_PEER_KEYS (2) is used for both firmware branches. Maybe the firmware should be told to allocate space for 4 keys for each peer? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k