Return-path: Received: from bu3sch.de ([62.75.166.246]:38512 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750809Ab0AKWhV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:37:21 -0500 From: Michael Buesch To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: Ath5k on 2.6.32 suddenly fails Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:36:49 +0100 Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Bob Copeland , Jiri Slaby , Nick Kossifidis , linux-wireless References: <201001101152.34316.mb@bu3sch.de> <43e72e891001110811u49ddb2d5qbc7bef3a7e3e76d1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43e72e891001110811u49ddb2d5qbc7bef3a7e3e76d1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <201001112336.50125.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday 11 January 2010 17:11:10 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >  11 Jan 10 11:11:28 quimby kernel: [163143.871947] ath5k phy0: failed to wakeup the MAC Chip > > So to be clear, this seems to be a regression from 2.6.31 to 2.6.32. > Can you confirm if ath5k worked in AP mode smoothly without this issue > or was this a regression against some random wireless-testing based > snapshit (which seems to be the case). I don't know if it is a regression between .31 and .32. Before I upgraded to .32, I used a .31 kernel, but with compat-wireless. So I did not use the .31 wireless bits (there were some other breakages that I did not track down further) I was either using compat-wireless-2009-09-28 or compat-wireless-2009-10-28 I don't really remember exactly which one. I don't really know how to find out, though. I was using it for months and it was rock-stable. > Michael, it seems this is not easy to reproduce but can you try the > latest 2.6.33-rc code to see if the issue is also there? I can make a > new compat-wireless snapshot for that soon if it helps. Well, It's a real pain to do experiments on that machine, because it is a production machine. Each failure will immediately result in people yelling at me. :D So I don't feel to well running an rc kernel on it... I currently have one and a half days of uptime. I think I'll first continue running .32 to check whether it happens again or if this was just some random hardware burp. I think it should be likely to trigger again within one or two days, if this is a bug. -- Greetings, Michael.