Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f204.google.com ([209.85.222.204]:38708 "EHLO mail-pz0-f204.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752228Ab0DZTEG (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:04:06 -0400 Received: by pzk42 with SMTP id 42so8210408pzk.4 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BD5E3A3.4050907@lwfinger.net> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:04:03 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= CC: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH PING] ssb patches for SPROM location References: <20100416133711.GB8554@tuxdriver.com> <4BC88EC4.5000606@lwfinger.net> <20100426182655.GE2387@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/26/2010 01:33 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > 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? My suggestion is that for now we only implement John's patch for no SPROM. I am hoping that we try to fix the failures for boxes with the SPROM in a normal location. Once we do that, there will be a simpler fix for testing at the alternate location. The patch will all be contained in sprom_do_read(). Larry