From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
ath9k_hw_mci_is_enabled wrapper also takes care of
ATH9K_HW_CAP_MCI being set for the AR9462 under test.
Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
index 26032cb..9ae6a4d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/gpio.c
@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ int ath9k_init_btcoex(struct ath_softc *sc)
txq = sc->tx.txq_map[WME_AC_BE];
ath9k_hw_init_btcoex_hw(sc->sc_ah, txq->axq_qnum);
sc->btcoex.bt_stomp_type = ATH_BTCOEX_STOMP_LOW;
- if (AR_SREV_9462(ah)) {
+ if (ath9k_hw_mci_is_enabled(ah)) {
sc->btcoex.duty_cycle = ATH_BTCOEX_DEF_DUTY_CYCLE;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sc->btcoex.mci.info);
--
1.7.0.4
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 08:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Wednesday 27 June 2012 08:18 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2012-06-27 4:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>>> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<[email protected]>
>>>
>>> seems i got a message like this
>>> ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2,
>>> state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>>> index c40e568..64cc782 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>>> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8
>>> opcode, u8 *rx_payload)
>>>
>>> seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12));
>>> ath_dbg(common, MCI,
>>> - "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%d\n",
>>> + "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%u\n",
>>> profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle,
>>> profile_status.is_critical, seq_num);
>> What about endian here? Also, wouldn't it be better to have a struct for
>> the rx payload data with proper endian annotation instead of using the
>> weird way of dereferencing the rx_payload pointer?
>>
>
> ok, we shall fix it soon.
>
>
Hi John, please pick this patch, we shall address Felix's suggestion in
a separate patch, i think it needs a bit of rework.
--
thanks,
shafi
On 2012-06-27 4:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
>
> seems i got a message like this
> ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2,
> state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
> index c40e568..64cc782 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8 opcode, u8 *rx_payload)
>
> seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12));
> ath_dbg(common, MCI,
> - "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%d\n",
> + "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%u\n",
> profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle,
> profile_status.is_critical, seq_num);
What about endian here? Also, wouldn't it be better to have a struct for
the rx payload data with proper endian annotation instead of using the
weird way of dereferencing the rx_payload pointer?
- Felix
From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
seems i got a message like this
ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2,
state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially.
Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
index c40e568..64cc782 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8 opcode, u8 *rx_payload)
seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12));
ath_dbg(common, MCI,
- "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%d\n",
+ "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%u\n",
profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle,
profile_status.is_critical, seq_num);
--
1.7.0.4
Hi Felix,
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 08:18 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2012-06-27 4:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<[email protected]>
>>
>> seems i got a message like this
>> ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2,
>> state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>> index c40e568..64cc782 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
>> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8 opcode, u8 *rx_payload)
>>
>> seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12));
>> ath_dbg(common, MCI,
>> - "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%d\n",
>> + "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%u\n",
>> profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle,
>> profile_status.is_critical, seq_num);
> What about endian here? Also, wouldn't it be better to have a struct for
> the rx payload data with proper endian annotation instead of using the
> weird way of dereferencing the rx_payload pointer?
>
ok, we shall fix it soon.
--
thanks,
shafi