Re: [PATCH 1/5] ath9k: warn when we get a ATH9K_INT_TIM_TIMER and are idle

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 01/18/2011 05:38 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ben Greear<greearb@candelatech.com>  wrote:
>> On 12/06/2010 06:48 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> We should not be idle when we get the ATH9K_INT_TIM_TIMER,
>>> otherwise we wake up the chip and that throws off the idle
>>> state, the driver needs to be in full sleep when idle and
>>> nothing should turn it awake without turning it back to
>>> full sleep again. If we leave the chip idle and suspend,
>>> upon resume the device will become unusable and we get:
>>>
>>> ath: Starting driver with initial channel: 5745 MHz
>>> ath: timeout (100000 us) on reg 0x7000: 0xdeadbeef&    0x00000003 !=
>>> 0x00000000
>>>
>>> Cc: Paul Stewart<pstew@google.com>
>>> Cc: Amod Bodas<amod.bodas@atheros.com>
>>> signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodriguez@atheros.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c |    1 +
>>>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
>>> index f026a03..fd27ec9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
>>> @@ -770,6 +770,7 @@ irqreturn_t ath_isr(int irq, void *dev)
>>>                 if (status&    ATH9K_INT_TIM_TIMER) {
>>>                         /* Clear RxAbort bit so that we can
>>>                          * receive frames */
>>> +                       WARN_ON(sc->ps_idle);
>>>                         ath9k_setpower(sc, ATH9K_PM_AWAKE);
>>>                         ath9k_hw_setrxabort(sc->sc_ah, 0);
>>>                         sc->ps_flags |= PS_WAIT_FOR_BEACON;
>>
>> Looks like this patch never made it in.
>>
>> Should it be in, or should I just drop it from my queue?
>>
>
> Eh, it shouldn't happen and if we warn we should use the new debugging
> warn once thingy you added. I never saw that trigger so probably we
> can just ignore it.

I've been running this patch for months and haven't noticed the
WARN_ON hit, so probably it's not needed.  Of course, I disable
power-saving..so maybe I'm not a good test case :P

Thanks,
Ben

>
>    Luis


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com