On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:25:51AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 5/15/2017 11:20 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:41:05AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >>Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>>iwlegacy firmware can crash when power save is configured. PS was > >>>allowed in "dbdac2b iwlegacy: properly enable power saving" with belive > >>>that user who enable PS is aware of that and can relate firmware crahes > >>>with PS. However some distributions seems to enable PS without user > >>>intervention, so warn about that. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> > >>>--- > >>> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c | 2 ++ > >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > >>>b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > >>>index 140b6ea..6aaa0e7 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlegacy/common.c > >>>@@ -5147,6 +5147,8 @@ void il_mac_flush(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct > >>>ieee80211_vif *vif, > >>> if (changed & (IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_PS | IEEE80211_CONF_CHANGE_IDLE)) { > >>> il->power_data.ps_disabled = !(conf->flags & IEEE80211_CONF_PS); > >>>+ WARN_ONCE(!il->power_data.ps_disabled, > >>>+ "Enabling power save might cause firmware crashes\n"); > >> > >>This prints the whole stack trace, right? Isn't that excessive and > >>fooling the users to think that they found a bug, which would mean more > >>bug reports sent to us? So maybe a simple printk is better here? > > > >I wanted to have back trace to assure problem will not be missed, but > >I think you have right, I'll post v2. > > I think instead of printk, a wiphy_warn() would be better here using > hw->wiphy.
I used dev_warn variant, what is consistent with the driver code. Stanislaw
