Ahhh... "make" in the module dir, not good?  I've since done a kernel build and 
I noticed it's not showing up (as much).  Why would building the kernel module 
that way cause that behavior?

Anthony
      From: Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org>
 To: Anthony Jenkins <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> 
Cc: Anthony Jenkins <scoobi_...@yahoo.com>; "wirel...@freebsd.org" 
<wirel...@freebsd.org> 
 Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 4:00 PM
 Subject: Re: Atheros AR9565 detected, not working
   
Hm, are you buliding as a module by doing "make" in the module dir? or
by doing a buildkernel?



-a




On 7 January 2015 at 21:10, Anthony Jenkins <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote:
> Removing just the ar9300_enable_rf_kill() bit works too, but now ath(4) 
> endlessly spews
>
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=3, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=0, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=1, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=0, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=2, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=0, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=1, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=0, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=2, nbufs=128?
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxbuf_alloc: nothing on rxbuf?!
>    ath0: ath_edma_rxfifo_alloc: Q1: alloc failed: i=0, nbufs=128?
>
> Also changed GPIO patch to not block/just/ pin 11 ops instead of all pins as 
> in previous patch, but if allowing all pins is kosher I'd prefer that.
>
> Anthony
>
> On 01/07/2015 09:08, Anthony Jenkins wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> Just letting you know I haven't died in a shootout with the US FBI or 
>> anything, just been working on (and suprisingly fixing) issues with my HP 
>> Envy Sleekbook 6 since the holidays.  I'll be cleaning up my patches and 
>> posting to the wiki this week (hopefully).  Also still sitting on that ACPI 
>> patch for the RTC CMOS handler.
>>
>>> So, would you mind trying your patch again but only with the bits that
>>> allow the GPIO pins to be enabled? If that works, then I'll commit
>>> that
>> Just to be clear, instead of commenting out the early exits in the GPIO 
>> readers/writers for certain GPIO addresses, I should selectively give the 
>> AR9565 a pass?  ...or do you want me to /just/ comment out the early exits, 
>> and revert the added call to ar9300_enable_rf_kill() and see if that works?  
>> I don't like those early exit bits anyway...
>>> In parallel I'm going to have to tidy up the rfkill capability
>>> API to correctly set bits - I'll likely expand the field in the driver
>>> and have the pre-AR9300 chipset code error out if an out-of-bounds
>>> gpio value is sent.
>> Excellent!  Anything I can help with?  We /have/ an rfkill API?  ...because 
>> I need some way to connect my newly-fixed laptop wifi-enable key to some 
>> function to enable/disable the radios.  Right now I'm just throwing an event 
>> over to devd(8).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On 12/23/2014 13:06, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On 22 December 2014 at 14:57, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, let me go see what's going on.
>>> I dislike when I say "let me see what's going on" and then I .. see
>>> what's going on.
>>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>> * the ar5212 HAL does the right thing - it checks the rfkill setup in
>>> ar5212Reset() and enables it if required
>>> * it also populates the rfkill data from EEPROM at attach time
>>> * the sysctl code just grabs the rfkill /eeprom field/ and .. well,
>>> that's the API. So I have to see if that's the same for the AR9300 or
>>> not. Grr.
>>>
>>> Well, it kinda is:
>>>
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_ENABLED        0x0001  /* bit 0:
>>> enabled/disabled */
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_ENABLED_S      0      /* bit 0:
>>> enabled/disabled */
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_POLARITY      0x0002  /* bit 1: polarity */
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_POLARITY_S    1      /* bit 1: polarity */
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL      0x00fc  /* bits 2..7:
>>> gpio PIN */
>>> ar9300eep.h:#define EEP_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL_S    2      /* bits 2..7:
>>> gpio PIN */
>>>
>>> .. but on the AR5212:
>>>
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v1.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL    0x001c
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v1.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL_S    2
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v1.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_POLARITY    0x0002
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v1.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_POLARITY_S    1
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v3.h:#define    AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT    0x0f    /* RF
>>> Silent/Clock Run Enable */
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v3.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL    0x001c
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v3.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_GPIO_SEL_S    2
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v3.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_POLARITY    0x0002
>>> ../ah_eeprom_v3.h:#define AR_EEPROM_RFSILENT_POLARITY_S    1
>>>
>>> .. so more bits are available on the ar9300. I have to check the
>>> AR5416 too; maybe more bits are also available there.
>>>
>>> Grr!
>>>
>>> * Then, the Ar5212 is doing it in ar5212Reset(), but ar5416Reset()
>>> isn't doing it! So I'm going to have to go and hook that up for the
>>> AR5416, AR9160, AR9280, AR9285, AR9287. Ugh.
>>>
>>> * the ar9300 HAL on -HEAD has this in ar9300_reset():
>>>
>>>    /* Reset ier reference count to disabled */
>>> //    OS_ATOMIC_SET(&ahp->ah_ier_ref_count, 1);C
>>>    if (ath_hal_isrfkillenabled(ah)) {
>>>        ar9300_enable_rf_kill(ah);
>>>    }
>>>
>>> .. so it should be enabling it at reset. We shouldn't need to enable
>>> it during ar9300_attach() as the first reset will set it up.
>>>
>>> * The AR5212 HAL enables rfkill interrupts, but the AR9300 doesn't.
>>> Apparently there are .. issues. I don't know what they are. So maybe
>>> we should use polling on that particular GPIO pin to provide rfkill
>>> feedback to the driver and eventually the network stack.
>>>
>>> So, would you mind trying your patch again but only with the bits that
>>> allow the GPIO pins to be enabled? If that works, then I'll commit
>>> that. In parallel I'm going to have to tidy up the rfkill capability
>>> API to correctly set bits - I'll likely expand the field in the driver
>>> and have the pre-AR9300 chipset code error out if an out-of-bounds
>>> gpio value is sent.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -adrian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>>>
>

  
_______________________________________________
freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to