From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VG0wf-0007Bw-Co for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:15:35 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: Crash when loading module References: <201308311731.26207.chunkeey@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:15:06 +0300 In-Reply-To: <201308311731.26207.chunkeey@googlemail.com> (Christian Lamparter's message of "Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:31:25 +0200") Message-ID: <87d2ot83v9.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: Christian Lamparter Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org Christian Lamparter writes: >> Found a way now: >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2013-August/000279.html >> >> Zaki, I would appreciate if you could test that patch and see if ath10k >> still crashes (it shouldn't). And if you want to provide your full name >> I can add your name to the Reported-by tag. > > I get this before it crashes now. (This is a QCA-9880-AR1A from TP-Link Archer C7) > > [ 271.140000] ath10k: Warning: chip id 0x043200ff is not known, expect problems > > Could it be, that this is just a typo, or are there several v1.0 chip_ids? I found out (after I sent the patch) that the chip id actually contains more than just the hardware revision. So when testing for hard revision (hw1.0 vs hw2.0) we need to do: (chip_id & 0xf00) >> 8 0x2 will be hw2.0 and 0x0 will be hw1.0. This seems to match with the chip ids my boards have and also you what you have. I'll send a v2, thanks for the feedback. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k