On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 00:13 +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > Interesting... below is the dump from ndiswrapper on BCM4331: > > R 4 1431.714843 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fb0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.740035 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fc0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.740050 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fc0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.850216 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fd0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.850229 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fd0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.882151 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fe0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.882164 2 0xb0600230 0x10000fe0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.885822 2 0xb0600230 0x10000ff0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.885835 2 0xb0600230 0x10000ff0 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.896775 2 0xb0600230 0x10000000 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.896790 2 0xb0600230 0x10000000 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.915842 2 0xb0600230 0x10000010 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.915857 2 0xb0600230 0x10000010 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.917399 2 0xb0600230 0x10000020 0x0 0 > R 4 1431.917413 2 0xb0600230 0x10000020 0x0 0 > > Broadcom uses bigger ring and they don't suffer from 0x1000 being ever > set. I've filled the ring few times, 0x1000 was never set on going > back to slot 0.
What was the physical address of the ring for this test run? -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list b43-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
