On Monday 11 December 2006 11:33, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 04:12:45PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: > > This version of the patch not only reports the status of the > > hardware-enabled flag, but it also sets > > the LED's 2 and 3 with opposite states. > > why?, isn't LED 3 the only one that is meant to be activated as it indicates > that radio is enabled as per the SPEC?, or maybe 4 to 6 depending on the mode > the radio is on? and why are the values being set and no register updated? > > > For those of you with switches to > > turn the radio on/off, > > please report if the LED in the switch changes state, and whether it is on > > or off when the radio is on. > > I have only 1 LED and it is not turning ON/OFF with this patch. > > It turns ON/OFF with the patch I made originally though and which uses > bcm43xx_leds_switch_all(bcm, 0) to update the LED status during the > bcm43xx_periodic_every1sec call. > > As I mentioned originally, the LED turns ON at init of the card regardless of > the status of the hardware enabled bit (I pressumed when the call for > bcm43xx_radio_turn_on is done, but never checked), and if the radio is > disabled it turns off as soon as softmac's association fails and the radio > gets turned off (no idea where, as I really didn't trace it either) but that > was why i commented out that probably all those functions were doing was to > update the LEDs.
Well, this information is all rather useless. Please track down _which_ exact bits generate your desired behaviour. We can not do this for you, as we don't have your hardware. It's as simple as this: If someone sees bad behaviour of _his_ leds, he must track it down himself, because we don't have the hardware to do it. > > This patch also starts the implementation of the current specs regarding > > periodic work. > > I see now the SPEC had several tasks to be done every second, including some > of the ones that were before in the every 15 seconds periodic call in the > code > (which was somethig that surprised me on the patch to begin with). > > Any idea of why it was done this way before?, just curious. Come on. You already know the answer. Hint: How has this spec been developed? -- Greetings Michael. _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
