Hi Felix,

On Wednesday 27 June 2012 08:18 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:

On 2012-06-27 4:30 PM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:

quoted

From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<redacted>

seems i got a message like this
ath: phy0: BT_Status_Update: is_link=0, linkId=2,
state=1, SEQ=-2085766476 initially.

Signed-off-by: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<redacted>
---
  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c |    2 +-
  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
index c40e568..64cc782 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/mci.c

@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static void ath_mci_msg(struct ath_softc *sc, u8 opcode, u8 *rx_payload)

  		seq_num = *((u32 *)(rx_payload + 12));
  		ath_dbg(common, MCI,
-			"BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%d\n",
+			"BT_Status_Update: is_link=%d, linkId=%d, state=%d, SEQ=%u\n",
  			profile_status.is_link, profile_status.conn_handle,
  			profile_status.is_critical, seq_num);

What about endian here? Also, wouldn't it be better to have a struct for
the rx payload data with proper endian annotation instead of using the
weird way of dereferencing the rx_payload pointer?

ok, we shall fix it soon.


-- 
thanks,
shafi