From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WNH9v-0002Ne-LJ for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:31:32 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: Firmware crash when sending large numbers of forwarded packets References: <87iorpnmlo.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87pplwmxwf.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:31:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Avery Pennarun's message of "Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:23 -0500") Message-ID: <8761nljiob.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Avery Pennarun Cc: ath10k Avery Pennarun writes: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Avery Pennarun writes: >>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>>> What I recommend is to use the master branch of my ath.git tree. That's >>>> fairly recent wireless-testing (max 2 weeks old) plus latest ath10k + >>>> ath6kl patches I have (ie. merge of wireless-testing and my ath-next >>>> branch). >>> >>> Ok, thanks. We're using a fairly old kernel on our device right now >>> (3.2.26) so we're using the ath10k driver from linux-backports. This >>> means it's a little tricky to pick an arbitrary version if it has >>> diverged too far from linux/master or linux-next. >> >> Yeah, you are not the only one using ath10k with linux-backports. >> Ideally we should have our own "backports-ath10k" which contains latest >> and greatest ath10k from my master tree. This would be really handy for >> debugging problems and verifying bug fixes, but I don't see any way to >> find time for that right now :/ > > For what it's worth, linux-backports seems to get updated to match > linux-next fairly frequently. They have one for next-20140305 for > example. It's pretty easy for me to test against one of those. It > seems to be not so important to rebase on top of linux-backports as to > rebase on top of (close to) same version linux-backports is using as > input. > > When I looked at the 20140305 release though, it appears that the > ath10k development has gotten quite far ahead of linux-next and some > of the patches not yet in linux-next (eg. reset fixes) are pretty > important. I haven't looked very closely, but I suspect it will take several weeks for patches to flow from my ath-next branch to backports. For important fixes, like the cold reset workarounds, it's too long. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k