Re: BUG in 2.6.22-rc2-mm1: NIC module b44.c broken (Broadcom 4400)

[Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla@gmx.de>]

Am Samstag, 26. Mai 2007 21:49 schrieben Sie:
> On Saturday 26 May 2007 21:39:54 Uwe Bugla wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 26. Mai 2007 21:19 schrieben Sie:
> > > Uwe, please try the following patch:
> > >
> > > Index: bu3sch-wireless-dev/drivers/net/b44.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- bu3sch-wireless-dev.orig/drivers/net/b44.c	2007-05-18
> > > 18:09:50.000000000 +0200 +++
> > > bu3sch-wireless-dev/drivers/net/b44.c	2007-05-26 21:18:28.000000000
> > > +0200 @@ -2201,10 +2201,12 @@ static int __devinit b44_init_one(struct
> > > printk("%2.2x%c", dev->dev_addr[i],
> > >  		       i == 5 ? '\n' : ':');
> > >
> > > +#if 0
> > >  	/* Initialize phy */
> > >  	spin_lock_irq(&bp->lock);
> > >  	b44_chip_reset(bp);
> > >  	spin_unlock_irq(&bp->lock);
> > > +#endif
> > >
> > >  	return 0;
> >
> > Against what kernel please?
> > Just try to be a bit more eloquent, man!
>
> Against a kernel which does not work for you, of course.
>
> Sometimes I wonder... (no better not say that).

YES! And I wonder TOO, definitely!

Quand meme (now, if you do not speak french: Above all that), I applied your 
patch against 2.6.22-rc2-mm1. Just to show my cooperation willing to get 
your "dream" being fulfilled!

Result is: No change!
Non-functionable b44-device at all!

Hint: Although being a "non-hacker" or "non-developer" I do have stepped 
across some experienced developer people who at least added some code to make 
their modules function in the following way:

modprobe xyz debug=1 (or debug=2 or debug=3 or debug=4 or debug=5 or debug=6)

In so far, if you continue to state that debugging is nothing but guessing 
around wildly you are definitely wrong, showing us all your missing code 
hacker experience. If you DO continue like this every step will be a torture 
not only for me but for the reading folks as well.

But every human being is here to learn and develop: In so far I am very 
optimistic!

Apart from the Kconfig chaos that seems to be subordinate in your personal 
rating scale, you at least could have added some functions like the above 
mentioned functions.

The fact that you simply ignored to imply those functions and continue to call 
other people dumb shows exactly how small and humble you are.

Apart from that:
The message that you rooted to my place was no "proof" at all for any kind of 
disfunctionality or compatibility issue!

In that message the lack of performance of the "enclosed" or "old" 
or "complete" b44 module (i. e. PCI-only module) was criticised, NOT the one 
ripped by you personally into two modules called b44 and ssb.

In so far I would deeply appreciate you personally to stick to the facts in 
your personal lack of knowledge about the b44 driver instead of playing bad 
politics against other people like me and others.


Hello my dear Andrew Morton,

Could you please do me and the rest of the world two favours?

A. Rip Michael Buesches code out of the mm-tree

B. Give Michael Buesch a fair chance to revise his disfunctionable code 
outside the mm-tree and / or the vanilla mainline.

Side note for the what and why:

I like to help avoid dangers by testing the mm-tree.
BUT:

If real debugging conforms to nothing but guessing around wildly let me tell 
you that I do not appreciate to be part of that torture due to the lack of 
experience of some German spare time hacker.

A: proven by facts not knowing or even wanting to know how to imply 
appropriate functionable debug parametres in his driver code

B: non-cooperative as far as Kconfig help features are concerned (i. E. help 
to understand the issues for users

C: calling all people simply dumb who do not know about his personal issues at 
all

Thank you, Andrew Morton! You are real fine!

Sincerely

Uwe