Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:4651 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751140AbZESGjY (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 02:39:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <40f31dec0905182332v49aff368oe485efaa56fbc11a@mail.gmail.com> References: <40f31dec0905181734t6a3db7f4peb2d57c3aebe075b@mail.gmail.com> <40f31dec0905182332v49aff368oe485efaa56fbc11a@mail.gmail.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:39:04 -0700 Message-ID: <43e72e890905182339u68c4d4f5v3a2f25e9e3547e60@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k: prevent infinite loop To: Nick Kossifidis Cc: Steven Rostedt , jirislaby@gmail.com, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Andrew Morton Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > 2009/5/19 Steven Rostedt : >> >> On Tue, 19 May 2009, Nick Kossifidis wrote: >>> >>> This is already fixed on wireless-testing ;-) >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/phy.c;h=d0d1c350025aebba1fe4e17a44550536a59951ba;hb=HEAD >> >> Thanks, but this does only half. Although I did not hit this in my laptop, >> it can be an issue. If step[0] == step[1] you have the same problem. >> > > Having the same power value for 2 different steps is something we can > expect (although docs say that we expect the line to be monotonically > increasing but anyway), having the same step twice is way out of spec, > there is no way we can have the same step twice on EEPROM, only if we > have a corrupted EEPROM (we need to add some sanity checks indeed here > -> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/eeprom.c;h=c56b494d417acd40d445d922f2861b53cc2315df;hb=HEAD#l910 > to handle such a case but first we need to have a "default" eeprom > dataset to fallback when we get such errors). Don't bother with busted EEPROMs, if its busted its busted. Chances are the complexity we'd need to add to deal with such devices is simply not worth it. Luis