Should return NETDEV_TX_{OK,BUSY} instead of 0,-1 (this doesn't change
any current functionality).
Changes-licensed-under: 3-Clause-BSD
Reported-by: Johannes Berg
Signed-off-by: Bob Copeland
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 02:50 +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> 2009/1/6 Maxim Levitsky :
> >
> > Glad to hear that.
> >
> > That what I meant btw, that this is related to phy (or radio as they
> > call it)
> >
> >
> > The chip that is on aspire one seems to be AR5007EG
> > which consist of AR5212 (mac
2009/1/6 Maxim Levitsky :
>
> Glad to hear that.
>
> That what I meant btw, that this is related to phy (or radio as they
> call it)
>
>
> The chip that is on aspire one seems to be AR5007EG
> which consist of AR5212 (mac) and AR2425 (phy,radio,analog part..)
>
I have such a chip from an eeepc and
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 01:49 +0200, Nick Kossifidis wrote:
> 2009/1/5 Maxim Levitsky :
> > On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 10:39 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Maxim Levitsky
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yes, with your 4 patches applied.
> >> > It seems even worse now, as this happene
2009/1/5 Maxim Levitsky :
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 10:39 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Maxim Levitsky
>> wrote:
>> > Yes, with your 4 patches applied.
>> > It seems even worse now, as this happened twice already.
>>
>> Can you try with just patch #4 applied (continu
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 10:39 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Maxim Levitsky
> wrote:
> > Yes, with your 4 patches applied.
> > It seems even worse now, as this happened twice already.
>
> Can you try with just patch #4 applied (continue in case of gain failure).
> I'd
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> Yes, with your 4 patches applied.
> It seems even worse now, as this happened twice already.
Can you try with just patch #4 applied (continue in case of gain failure).
I'd be interested to know how much/if the frequency of MAC lockup changes
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Geoffrey McRae wrote:
> Isn't that patch slightly wrong anyway?
>
> If the length of the ssid is 0 why check its first byte? Without looking
> at the surrounding code, if that buffer is not allocated and we check
> the bytes value, it could cause a seg fault.
As it
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 21:19 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Maxim Levitsky
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Indeed, these changes help a lot, I don't see
> > power calibration timeouts anymore.
> >
> > Yet, card managed to lockup in different way:
> >
> > "failed to wakeup th
