Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:50858 "EHLO mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751581Ab0DZSdc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:33:32 -0400 Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so662502wwb.19 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100426182655.GE2387@tuxdriver.com> References: <20100416133711.GB8554@tuxdriver.com> <4BC88EC4.5000606@lwfinger.net> <20100426182655.GE2387@tuxdriver.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:33:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] ssb patches for SPROM location From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Larry Finger , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2010/4/26 John W. Linville : > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:22:28AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: >> On 04/16/2010 10:51 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> > W dniu 16 kwietnia 2010 15:37 użytkownik John W. Linville >> > napisał: >> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 08:20:51AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> >>> John, I posted some time ago following patches: >> >>> >> >>> [RFT][PATCH] ssb: Look for SPROM at different offset on higher rev CC >> >>> [PATCH 1/2] ssb: Use relative offsets for SPROM >> >>> [PATCH 2/2] ssb: Fix order of definitions and some text space indents >> >>> >> >>> while Michael has some doubts about "ssb: Look for SPROM at different >> >>> offset on higher rev CC" I explained to him that what he does not like >> >>> was fixed in next 2 posted patches. >> >>> >> >>> AFAIR you got some device with this recently-discovered location of >> >>> SPROM. Could you test my set if it makes your card working? If so, >> >>> could you take that patches to your tree? >> >> >> >> Sorry, been busy w/ other things.  FWIW, my implementation based on >> >> the RE work from Larry did not work on the box in question, and my >> >> implementation wasn't substantially different from yours.  Anyway, >> >> I'll try to confirm this soon w/ your patches and to collect more >> >> information for Larry. >> > >> > Ah, I didn't know you got own implementation. Had to miss it. >> > >> > Larry do you have any ideas what else may we do incorrectly? >> >> No. AFAICT, we have implemented it correctly. Any additional info would >> be welcome. > > FWIW, this patch series also still results in a hang on my problematic > netbook.  I'm going to merge them anyway, in hopes that they make > things better for someone (or at least get us closer to it).  I'll try > to pinpoint this hang as well. Did it actually pick another (newly discovered) offset for SPROM location in your case? Could you add some single printk to check this? -- Rafał