From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:34148 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751987Ab0JUO1F (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:27:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iwlwifi: fix set_tx_power vs scan From: "Guy, Wey-Yi" To: Stanislaw Gruszka Cc: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20101021131348.GA5654@redhat.com> References: <1286977193-12144-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com> <1286983100.10446.1.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> <20101014083204.GA2286@redhat.com> <20101021131348.GA5654@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:26:14 -0700 Message-Id: <1287671174.25126.0.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 06:13 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:32:05AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > Looks good, the only thing is if priv->tx_power_user_lmt == > > > priv->tx_power_next, we don't even have to call set_tx_power, but I > > > guess calling it won't hurt, so its your decision check or not. > > > > I'll will call iwl_set_tx_power( ... , false); what seems to be right > > thing to do. > > Set tx power have to be forces. Without that I get > Thanks Wey