Re: [PATCH stable] b43: Do not return TX_BUSY from op_tx

On Thursday 03 July 2008 08:35:23 Kalle Valo wrote: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: +drop_packet: + /* We can not transmit this packet. Drop it. */ + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb); return NETDEV_TX_OK; So no need to call ieee80211_tx_status() in this case? I'm just curious

Re: [PATCH stable] b43: Do not return TX_BUSY from op_tx

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 10:31 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: On Thursday 03 July 2008 08:35:23 Kalle Valo wrote: Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: +drop_packet: + /* We can not transmit this packet. Drop it. */ + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb); return NETDEV_TX_OK; So no need

Re: [PATCH] ssb, b43, b43legacy, b44: Rewrite SSB DMA API

Hi, I have applied this patch and i tested on a wl500gpv2 (BCM5354). The following part disable the ethernet device. If this part of the patch is restored the device work ok. -int ssb_dma_set_mask(struct ssb_device *ssb_dev, u64 mask) +int ssb_dma_set_mask(struct ssb_device *dev, u64 mask)

Re: [PATCH] ssb, b43, b43legacy, b44: Rewrite SSB DMA API

On Thursday 03 July 2008 18:30:18 Felipe Maya wrote: Hi, I have applied this patch and i tested on a wl500gpv2 (BCM5354). The following part disable the ethernet device. If this part of the patch is restored the device work ok. Well, I would say your architecture is pretty broken then. This

Re: [PATCH] ssb, b43, b43legacy, b44: Rewrite SSB DMA API

On Thursday 03 July 2008 22:52:35 Michael Buesch wrote: On Thursday 03 July 2008 18:30:18 Felipe Maya wrote: Hi, I have applied this patch and i tested on a wl500gpv2 (BCM5354). The following part disable the ethernet device. If this part of the patch is restored the device work ok.