On Apr 9, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Lorenzo Nava wrote: > Hi, > > I think that Francesco agrees with me, so 0x42 is ok for firmware > capabilities. It's ok for me. -FG
> > > Cheers, > > Lorenzo > > On Apr 9, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Michael Buesch wrote: > >> On Thursday 09 April 2009 12:36:42 Francesco Gringoli wrote: >>> On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Michael Buesch wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday 08 April 2009 02:11:16 Michael Buesch wrote: >>>>> Completely untested patch to implement firmware capabilities >>>>> and automagic QoS-disabling. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So could somebody who uses opensource fw test this? >>>> >>>> Module parameter qos=0 should not be needed anymore. So please test >>>> opensource fw >>>> with qos=1. >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> cool! These are excerpts from dmesg. All the times connectivity >>> was ok. >> >> Ok nice. >> If you guys think 0x42 still is a good SHM offset, I'll submit it >> upstream. >> >> -- >> Greetings, Michael. >> _______________________________________________ >> Bcm43xx-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev > ------- Francesco Gringoli, PhD - Assistant Professor Dept. of Electrical Engineering for Automation University of Brescia via Branze, 38 25123 Brescia ITALY Ph: ++39.030.3715843 FAX: ++39.030.380014 WWW: http://www.ing.unibs.it/~gringoli _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
