Hi Felix, On Wednesday 27 June 2012 08:18 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2012-06-27 4:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote: >> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<moham...@qca.qualcomm.com> >> >> seems i got a message like this >> ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2, >> state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<moham...@qca.qualcomm.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c >> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c >> index c40e568..64cc782 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c >> @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8 opcode, >> u8 *rx_payload) >> >> seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12)); >> ath_dbg(common, MCI, >> - "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, >> SEQ=%d\n", >> + "BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, >> SEQ=%u\n", >> profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle, >> profile_status.is_critical, seq_num); > What about endian here? Also, wouldn't it be better to have a struct for > the rx payload data with proper endian annotation instead of using the > weird way of dereferencing the rx_payload pointer? >
ok, we shall fix it soon. -- thanks, shafi _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
