On 23 January 2015 at 12:45, Anthony Jenkins <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote: > Here's a patch that works on my laptop's AR9565 - it just allows GPIO BIT_11 > accesses. No idea why that works; I thought I discovered BIT_8 was the > rfkill bit. I tried allowing both BIT_11 /and/ BIT_8, but that doesn't work > (wpa_supplicant(8) can never authenticate). May dig further, but I'm kinda > swamped with stuff.
I'm glad you dug this far! > I can conditionally allow BIT_11 GPIOs if the device is an AR9565... should > I do that? I think we should just kill the check entirely for now. I'll go look at doing that soon. > Why/how does the Atheros driver emit invalid GPIO bit controls for a device? > In other words, if my Atheros 123456 chip wants to do XXX, how does that > translate to a GPIO bit access that needs to be blocked in the low-level > GPIO functions? Yet another way to put it, what's that blocking logic in > ar9300_gpio.c there for? Well, because upper layer routines may ask for GPIO pins to do things (like configure LEDs, antenna switches, etc.) It's not just the HAL that's asking for GPIO assignments. It's not invalid - it's that some chips will glue other things into GPIO lines. Things like external low noise RX amplifiers, high power TX amplifiers, etc. -adrian _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"