Re: Does qca9994 support available in ath10K

2017-05-09 Thread Ben Greear
On 05/09/2017 04:40 PM, feng guo wrote: To whomever may can help, Recently, I got one reference design board with a qca9994 802.11ac Wave2 pcie module. And now I have bring up the board, but I can’t get the wifi module work. I want to know that does qca9994 have been supported by ath10k?

Does qca9994 support available in ath10K

2017-05-09 Thread feng guo
To whomever may can help, Recently, I got one reference design board with a qca9994 802.11ac Wave2 pcie module. And now I have bring up the board, but I can’t get the wifi module work. I want to know that does qca9994 have been supported by ath10k? Regards Feng

Does qca9994 support available in ath10K?

2017-05-09 Thread Guo Feng
To whomever may can help, Recently, I got one reference design  board with a qca9994 802.11ac Wave2 pcie module. And now I have bring up the board, but I can’t get the wifi module work.  I want to know that does qca9994 have been supported by ath10k? Regards Feng  

Does qca9994 support available in ath10K?

2017-05-09 Thread Guo Feng
To whomever may can help, Recently, I got one reference design  board with a qca9994 802.11ac Wave2 pcie module. And now I have bring up the board, but I can’t get the wifi module work.  I want to know that does qca9994 have been supported by ath10k? Regards Feng  

Re: [v2,1/3] ath9k: Support channels in licensed bands

2017-05-09 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 9 May 2017 at 05:57, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > Hey Kalle, > > it seems like there was some discussion here and I wouldn't expect too many > more opinions ... do you think we can have a decision based on what has been > discussed here? (Note: FreeBSD has had in-tree

Re: [v2,1/3] ath9k: Support channels in licensed bands

2017-05-09 Thread Simon Wunderlich
Hey Kalle, it seems like there was some discussion here and I wouldn't expect too many more opinions ... do you think we can have a decision based on what has been discussed here? I'd be happy to rebase the remaining patches if that is necessary. Thank you! Simon On Friday, April 21,

[PATCH v2] ath10k: remove unnecessary code

2017-05-09 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
The array fields in struct wmi_start_scan_arg that are checked here are fixed size arrays so they can never be NULL. Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1260031 Cc: Arend Van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva

Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath10k: remove unnecessary code

2017-05-09 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
Hi Arend, Quoting Arend Van Spriel : On 9-5-2017 7:33, Kalle Valo wrote: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. So these tests will always evaluate as false and

Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath10k: remove unnecessary code

2017-05-09 Thread Kalle Valo
Arend Van Spriel writes: > On 9-5-2017 7:33, Kalle Valo wrote: >> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: >> >>> The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. >>> So these tests will always evaluate as false and

Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath10k: remove unnecessary code

2017-05-09 Thread Arend Van Spriel
On 9-5-2017 7:33, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: > >> The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. >> So these tests will always evaluate as false and therefore the _return_ >> will never be executed. >> >> Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath10k: remove unnecessary code

2017-05-09 Thread Gustavo A. R. Silva
Hi Kalle, Quoting Kalle Valo : "Gustavo A. R. Silva" writes: The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address. So these tests will always evaluate as false and therefore the _return_ will never be executed.