On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 05:55:40PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 30 August 2009 17:10:23 Larry Finger wrote:
> > Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Sunday 30 August 2009 02:15:55 Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> > >> static void lpphy_pr41573_workaround(struct b43_wldev *dev)
> > >> {
> > >> struct b43_phy_lp *lpphy = dev->phy.lp;
> > >> @@ -1357,28 +1488,440 @@ static void lpphy_pr41573_workaround(struct
> > >> b43_wldev *dev)
> > >> b43_lptab_read_bulk(dev, B43_LPTAB32(7, 0x140),
> > >> saved_tab_size, saved_tab);
> > >> }
> > >> + b43_put_phy_into_reset(dev);
> > >
> > > Are you sure you really want this?
> > > This function completely disables the PHY on the backplane and keeps the
> > > physical
> > > PHY reset pin asserted (even after return from the function).
> > > So the PHY will physically be powered down from this point on. The
> > > following
> > > PHY accesses could even hang the machine, because the PHY won't respond to
> > > register accesses anymore.
> > >
> > > We currently only use this function on A/G Multi-PHY devices to
> > > permanently
> > > hard-disable the PHY that's not used.
> >
> > The PHY reset routine in
> > http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/802.11/PHY/Reset, which I just updated
> > for the latest N PHY changes, appears to be a different routine than
> > b43_put_phy_into_reset(). The names are confusing.
>
> b43_put_phy_into_reset() is opencoded in the specifications in various init
> routines. There's no separate specs page for that function.
> But I think the code is straightforward and easy to understand.
So is this patch right or not? Should I hold onto it for 2.6.33
(i.e. after the 2.6.32 merge window)?
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
