Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:58349 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754150Ab0KMM4T convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:56:19 -0500 Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4so476479qyk.19 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 04:56:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101110194039.GE2714@tuxdriver.com> References: <201011042037.00178.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <201011051044.37167.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <201011051056.03700.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <20101110194039.GE2714@tuxdriver.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:56:18 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] rt2x00: Wait up to one second on rt2800 for WPDMA to be ready From: Ivo Van Doorn To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Helmut Schaa , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:40 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:07:22AM +0100, Ivo Van Doorn wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Helmut Schaa >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Am Donnerstag 04 November 2010 schrieb Ivo van Doorn: >> >> >> From: Helmut Schaa >> >> >> >> >> >> At least some devices need such a long time to inititalize WPDMA. This >> >> >> only increases the maximum wait time and shouldn't affect devices that >> >> >> have been working before. >> >> >> >> >> >> Reported-by: Joshua Smith >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn >> >> >> --- >> >> > >> >> > Ivo, the patch context looks different then in the version I've send to you. >> >> > >> >> > The >> >> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < REGISTER_BUSY_COUNT; i++) { >> >> > should be >> >> > ? ? ? ?for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) { >> >> > >> >> > Otherwise we don't wait up to one second as in the comment but just 50ms :P >> >> > >> >> > However, that change was part of a previous patch that was already merged into >> >> > the rt2x00 git tree. Seems like that change got lost during the merge ... >> >> >> >> I'll try to find the patch which changed the REGISTER_BUSY_COUNT behavior. >> > >> > I'm not sure but I guess I haven't sent that one as separate [PATCH] but it >> > was inlined in the mail traffic with Joshua ("Question about starting up an >> > AP"). >> >> Ah ok, that explains why I missed it. I'll dig it up, and send it to >> wireless-testing >> as soon as possible (John, do you want it as separate patch, or should >> it be merged >> into this patch?). > > Separate patch, please (if you haven't already sent it). Ok, patch will follow today. ivo