Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.188]:35838 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751352AbYICJXu (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:23:50 -0400 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 18so2137660fkq.5 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240809030223m56ce47aqf9f41fab7d3453ca@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080903_112355_739239_63D4237F) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:23:48 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Marcel Holtmann" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] iwlwifi: generic init calibrations framework Cc: "David Miller" , yi.zhu@intel.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com In-Reply-To: <1220429411.6714.17.camel@californication> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <1220411930-15216-3-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1220411930-15216-4-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1220411930-15216-5-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <20080902.203634.127434142.davem@davemloft.net> <1220429411.6714.17.camel@californication> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Tomas, > >> > This patch fixes a critical bug that only the last calibration result >> > was applied. On reception of one calibration result all the calibration >> > results were freed therefore only last was applied. The patch fixes this >> > problem by introducing a generic init calibration framework which allows >> > variable number of init calibrations and allows addition new HW. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler >> > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Grumbach >> > Signed-off-by: Zhu Yi >> >> This is borderline, I would rather hold off on such a sizable change >> for 2.6.27 as I'll have a hard time justifying it. > > do you see any way for fixing (or improving) this with the current code > and hold the whole framework change off until the next merge window. > > Maybe instead of iwl_free_calib_results(priv); just freeing them > individually in their case statements. > You know the hardware better than I do, but that should just work > (judging from the code). > > Regards > > Marcel In general it's possible, but we've already tested this fix. Because this is sensitive, even if the code looks okay I cannot approve it until we run the whole validation cycle and measurements in the lab so it will take some time. Last time we broke it code also looked good :) Tomas