Right, but same deal - if it asserts the line, it should stomp wifi transmission in your particular scheme.
adrian On 9 April 2013 19:37, sandeep suresh <sandeep.sur...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > Hello Mr.Adrian, > Thanks for your response. During googling, I had come across the > following 2-wire coexistence solution from owl modules. > > http://support.connectblue.com/display/PRODWLAN/cB-OWL22x+Bluetooth+co-existence+application+note > According to this application note, for 2-wire coexistence, WLAN_ACTIVE and > BT_PRIORITY signals are used rather than WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE. What is > your opinion on this? And as I understand owl modules are based on Atheros > chipsets. > > Regards > Sandeep. > > From: Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> > To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.sur...@yahoo.co.in> > Cc: Sujith Manoharan <suj...@msujith.org>; ath9k-devel > <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>; "linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org" > <linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 4:30 AM > > Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior > > Hi, > > Yes, "WLAN_ACTIVE" here is just both TX and RX activity. > > So if it were working, that would stay low. > > > > adrian > > _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
