Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Monday 31 August 2009 19:53:31 John W. Linville wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's incorrect.
I agree.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
