(Fixing top posting)
"Pan, Miaoqing" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
#define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
#define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
#define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9330_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9340_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x000003FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x00000FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x00003FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x000007FF
#define AR9531_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9550_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9561_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
solves the problem.
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <redacted>
Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/
But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?
And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
release.
Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
patch from the patchwork link above.
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Saturday 04 June 2016 08:07 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
(Fixing top posting)
"Pan, Miaoqing" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
quoted
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
#define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
#define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
#define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9330_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9340_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x000003FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x00000FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x00003FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x000007FF
#define AR9531_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9550_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9561_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
solves the problem.
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/
But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?
And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
release.
Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
patch from the patchwork link above.
This is also ok. Please add my
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
and maybe a Reported-by tag is also appropriate in this case.
Regards
Sudip
Got it, thanks. There is no difference of the changes for AR9462 which is the chip Sudip tested.
Thanks,
Miaoqing
-----Original Message-----
From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kvalo@codeaurora.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 10:38 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing <redacted>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>; Stephen Rothwell <redacted>; ath9k-devel <redacted>; linux-next@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan <redacted>
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request
(Fixing top posting)
"Pan, Miaoqing" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
#define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
#define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
#define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9330_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9340_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x000003FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x00000FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x00003FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x000007FF
#define AR9531_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9550_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9561_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
solves the problem.
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/
But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?
And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc release.
Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the patch from the patchwork link above.