On Monday 08 May 2006 12:48, Sam Leffler wrote:
> If I had intended stable users to try this code I would have:
>
> 1. posted to stable@
> 2. provided specific changes for those users (e.g. a patch)
>
> You will note my initial post about a new hal was done to both mailing
> lists. I did not post
If I had intended stable users to try this code I would have:
1. posted to stable@
2. provided specific changes for those users (e.g. a patch)
You will note my initial post about a new hal was done to both mailing
lists. I did not post this hal to stable because I did not want to deal
with pe
On Sunday 07 May 2006 22:09, Sam Leffler wrote:
> I don't know why you are posting patches like this; they include changes
> that are not MFC'd for specific reasons. I've already told you
> privately that the new hal has nothing to do with the issue of
> supporting the 1/2 and 1/4-rate channels in
On Sunday 07 May 2006 21:39, JoaoBR wrote:
the former patch was the wrong one, sorry
João
--- if_ath.c.ori Sun May 7 20:38:42 2006
+++ if_ath.c Sun May 7 07:18:07 2006
@@ -293,7 +293,8 @@
if_initname(ifp, device_get_name(sc->sc_dev),
device_get_unit(sc->sc_dev));
- ah = ath_hal_attach(de
On Saturday 06 May 2006 21:17, Sam Leffler wrote:
> A new test snapshot is available at:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sam/ath_hal-20060506.tgz
>
> This is 0.9.17.0 and is known to work on sparc (tested) and may well
> work on alpha (untested but likely the same issue that broke sparc).
>
> This c
Sam Leffler wrote:
> Otherwise I believe I fixed the sparc builds.
I've built it as a module on 6.1PR/sparc64 (as of 09.03.2006) and it
still
shows the same behaviour as the previous build (PR sparc64/94483)
cheers,
s.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org ma
A test snapshot is avilable at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~sam/ath_hal-20060425.tgz
This version differs from what's in cvs mainly in that there are builds
for new target platforms. In particular I've done builds for all the
Atheros SoC's (which doesn't matter to freebsd users because there is
