Return-path: Received: from bu3sch.de ([62.75.166.246]:55235 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753850AbYI3N0g (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:26:36 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [RFC/T] b43: to few loop tries in do_dummy_tx Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:26:11 +0200 Cc: Peter Stuge , wireless References: <48E11F1E.50705@lwfinger.net> <200809292038.37939.mb@bu3sch.de> <20080929211620.6344.qmail@stuge.se> In-Reply-To: <20080929211620.6344.qmail@stuge.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200809301526.11519.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080930_152642_551009_54840135) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 29 September 2008 23:16:20 Peter Stuge wrote: > Michael Buesch wrote: > > Actually, I do know since the very first days of bcm43xx that the > > loop counts are not big enough in some of these loops. > > Would it make sense to double check the conditions after the loop? No it wouldn't. Accessing the registers has side-effects. > > But I didn't change it, as it was said the current counts match the > > specs. > > Which specs? Our specs? -- Greetings Michael.