From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]:61157 "EHLO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750714AbXCLSat (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:30:49 -0400 Message-ID: <45F59C53.4090500@lwfinger.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:30:43 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" CC: David Woodhouse , Joseph Jezak , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Fix typo in B5PHY init specifications References: <45e85f2b.Dp1dM05tvZFFROmc%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <1173685989.3584.2.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <45F55452.3000704@gentoo.org> <20070312145309.GB8878@tuxdriver.com> <1173712594.3584.6.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <45F590FA.4020409@lwfinger.net> <20070312174825.GD8878@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20070312174825.GD8878@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: John W. Linville wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:42:18PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: >> David Woodhouse wrote: >>> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 10:53 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: >>>> FWIW, by inspection it looks like the mac80211-based driver is >>>> (trying?) to implement this change. >>>> >>>> David, have you tried the mac80211 version? Does it still have the >>>> same crash? >>> Should the one in 2.6.20-1.2982.fc7 be OK? I can try that relatively >>> easily; anything else might need to wait till I get home. >>> >> I don't think it will improve anything. I don't currently have a copy of wireless-dev, but the code >> in the mb tree is identical with that of wireless-2.6. I'm currently trying to figure out the spec >> at http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/802.11/PHY/calinit and what we need to change. > > Huh? Are you looking in drivers/net/wireless/mac80211/bcm43xx? > It certainly seems to differ quite a bit from what is in > drivers/net/wireless/bcm43xx (i.e. no the softmac-based version). I was, but the conclusion is the same. The generate_xxatt_list is not relevant and only the last if clause is important. The second argument to the second call to wireless_core_reset is just a different way to say "non-zero". I've been looking at the code for a while now, and I still don't see where the code doesn't match the spec. Either it is a subtle point, or I'm not even close to sharp today. Larry