Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 February 2007 18:42, Larry Finger wrote:
>> roucaries bastien wrote:
>>> Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
>>> I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
>>> order to associate but it is another
On Sunday, 4 February 2007 18:42, Larry Finger wrote:
> roucaries bastien wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
> > I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
> > order to associate but it is another problem linked to a really
roucaries bastien wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
> I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
> order to associate but it is another problem linked to a really weak
> power.
Bastien,
Please try this patch instead.
On 1/29/07, Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
>> - return 0;
>> + return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
>> }
>
> While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
>
On 1/29/07, Larry Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
- return 0;
+ return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
}
While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
reloading the
roucaries bastien wrote:
Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
order to associate but it is another problem linked to a really weak
power.
Bastien,
Please try this patch instead.
Thanks,
On Sunday, 4 February 2007 18:42, Larry Finger wrote:
roucaries bastien wrote:
Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
order to associate but it is another problem linked to a really weak
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 4 February 2007 18:42, Larry Finger wrote:
roucaries bastien wrote:
Sorry for the delay it works. This time I can use iwlist eth scan.
I have some difficulties to associate and I need to rmmod/modprobe in
order to associate but it is another problem linked
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
>> - return 0;
>> + return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
>> }
>
> While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
> reloading the module), it's not a long-term fix -
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
> - return 0;
> + return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
> }
While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
reloading the module), it's not a long-term fix - userspace is going to
notice the
On 1/29/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
> >> Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
> >> there a assertion that failed?
> >>
> > It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
> > have usually a lot of
> > bcm43xx: ASSERTION
Hi!
> >> Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
> >> there a assertion that failed?
> >>
> > It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
> > have usually a lot of
> > bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation < 10) at:
> >
Hi!
Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
there a assertion that failed?
It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
have usually a lot of
bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation 10) at:
On 1/29/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
there a assertion that failed?
It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
have usually a lot of
bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
- return 0;
+ return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
}
While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
reloading the module), it's not a long-term fix - userspace is going to
notice the
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:55:41PM +0100, roucaries bastien wrote:
- return 0;
+ return bcm43xx_init_one(pdev, NULL);
}
While this may well work (it's basically equivalent to unloading and
reloading the module), it's not a long-term fix - userspace is
roucaries bastien wrote:
>> Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
>> there a assertion that failed?
>>
> It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
> have usually a lot of
> bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation < 10) at:
>
roucaries bastien wrote:
Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was
there a assertion that failed?
It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
have usually a lot of
bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation 10) at:
Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was there a
assertion that failed?
It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
have usually a lot of
bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation < 10) at:
roucaries bastien wrote:
> My bcm43xx oops after suspend to disk on a 2.6.20rc5 kernel (preempt+smp).
>
> ---
> Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: caller is oops_begin+0xb/0x80
> Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel:
> Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel:
My bcm43xx oops after suspend to disk on a 2.6.20rc5 kernel (preempt+smp).
---
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: caller is oops_begin+0xb/0x80
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel:
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: Call Trace:
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel
roucaries bastien wrote:
My bcm43xx oops after suspend to disk on a 2.6.20rc5 kernel (preempt+smp).
---
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: caller is oops_begin+0xb/0x80
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel:
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: Call Trace:
Jan 25 19:47
Do you have the log stuff that precedes this part? In particular, was there a
assertion that failed?
It is oops on resume and no asseertion failled this boot. However I
have usually a lot of
bcm43xx: ASSERTION FAILED (radio_attenuation 10) at:
My bcm43xx oops after suspend to disk on a 2.6.20rc5 kernel (preempt+smp).
---
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: caller is oops_begin+0xb/0x80
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel:
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel: Call Trace:
Jan 25 19:47:39 portablebastien kernel
24 matches
Mail list logo
