From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YDlMV-0001DY-1o for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 02:49:44 +0000 Message-ID: <54BF13AE.5010909@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:49:18 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: More than one ath10k NIC in 3.19.0-rc5? References: <54BECE4D.9020308@candelatech.com> <54BF0B42.7050101@dd-wrt.com> In-Reply-To: <54BF0B42.7050101@dd-wrt.com> 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: Sebastian Gottschall Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org On 01/20/2015 06:13 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > Am 20.01.2015 um 22:53 schrieb Ben Greear: >> I tried running a patched version of 3.19.0-rc5 kernel, and it seems to work >> fine when there is one ath10k NIC in the system, but when there is two it >> doesn't try to load the firmware. >> >> Hacked 3.17.8+ works fine. >> >> Anyone tried more than one ath10k NIC in 3.19 kernel? >> >> Thanks, >> Ben > standard x86 system? i just can say that with 3.18 i have big troubles with the new pci bus code introduced on several embedded devices. > so maybe the reason is here? Standard 64-bit x86. 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