On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 12:34 -0400, David Reimer wrote:
The 05:06.X device is the card bus bridge that the BroadCom card is
connetcted to. Basically, it the pcmcia slot.
What machine are you using? I tested my own pcmcia slot with a 16-bit
device last night on my powerbook and it didn't work
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 08:48 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
What machine are you using? I tested my own pcmcia slot with a 16-bit
device last night on my powerbook and it didn't work because there were
interrupt routing problems, even after doing echo -n 1 add_card or
whatever that sysfs knob is
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
John,
Please apply this patch by Martin Langer to wireless-2.6. It must follow the
patch to Add firmware
version printout to wireless-2.6 (bcm43xx-softmac). As originally submitted,
the patch was
appropriate for an obsolete
On Thursday 07 September 2006 10:43, Bin Zhang wrote:
On 9/5/06, Hendrik Sattler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag 05 September 2006 19:58 schrieb Larry Finger:
Based on user reports and my own experiences, the current problems with
NETDEV WATCHDOG tx timeouts, and the device just
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Martin Langer wrote:
Larry, IIRC your hardware is a 0x812 rev 4. This core will load a
different microcode (bcm43xx_microcode4.fw) than all later core
revisions. (I guess the pci revision number isn't usefull here.)
Those
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:28:53PM +0200, Bin Zhang wrote:
On 9/7/06, Martin Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Martin Langer wrote:
Those old microcodes 2 and 4 seem to have a different instruction set
in
their firmware than
Martin Langer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Sure. But there are more rev numbers in your logfiles. And there has to
be the revision of your wlan core 0x812, too. Look for a line like
bcm43xx: Core 1: ID 0x812, rev 0x4, vendor 0x4243, disabled
On 9/7/06, Martin Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:28:53PM +0200, Bin Zhang wrote:
On 9/7/06, Martin Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:51:08PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
Martin Langer wrote:
Those old microcodes 2 and 4 seem to have a
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
+return -EPERM;
+
you want to take the spinlock lock here, too.
Obviously, I copied the wrong model. Is it correct that one should take both
locks if your code will
touch the hardware, but the mutex
John,
Please apply this patch by Martin Langer to wireless-2.6. It must follow the
patch to Add firmware
version printout to wireless-2.6 (bcm43xx-softmac). Martins's original version
was appropriate for
an obsolete version of bcm43xx-softmac, but I have updated and tested. This
version
First I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who's been trying to help
me. You've all been very helpful and patient with all of my newbe questions.
I'm still having problems getting my card bound (I believe that's the
correct terminology, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll first do a
Am Donnerstag 07 September 2006 19:19 schrieb David Reimer:
I guess my first questions is what mechanism is used to bind a device to a
driver, and secondly where is a good source for me to read to start to
understand the Linux Device Driver system?
I suggest existing drivers as example. I know
Hi all,
I think I have a fix for the bcm43xx bug that leads to NETDEV WATCHDOG tx
timeouts and would like it
to get as much testing as possible as this bug affects V2.6.18-rcX. If the
problem is truly
fixed, I hope to get the fix into mainline before release of the bug into the
stable series.
On Thursday 07 September 2006 20:17, Larry Finger wrote:
Hi all,
I think I have a fix for the bcm43xx bug that leads to NETDEV WATCHDOG tx
timeouts and would like it
to get as much testing as possible as this bug affects V2.6.18-rcX. If the
problem is truly
fixed, I hope to get the fix
On Thursday 07 September 2006 15:21, Larry Finger wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 07 September 2006 03:34, Larry Finger wrote:
+ return -EPERM;
+
you want to take the spinlock lock here, too.
Obviously, I copied the wrong model. Is it correct that one should take
Michael Buesch wrote:
The real question is: Why does this patch help?
Let's explain it. We don't stop networking just for fun there.
While executing long preemptible periodic work, we must ensure
that the TX path into the driver is not entered. It's the same
reason why we disable IRQs in the
16 matches
Mail list logo
