Right, but same deal - if it asserts the line, it should stomp wifi transmission in your particular scheme. adrian On 9 April 2013 19:37, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Mr.Adrian, > Thanks for your response. During googling, I had come across the > following 2-wire coexistence solution from owl modules. > > http://support.connectblue.com/display/PRODWLAN/cB-OWL22x+Bluetooth+co-existence+application+note > According to this application note, for 2-wire coexistence, WLAN_ACTIVE and > BT_PRIORITY signals are used rather than WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE. What is > your opinion on this? And as I understand owl modules are based on Atheros > chipsets. > > Regards > Sandeep. > > From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@xxxxxxxxxxx>; ath9k-devel > <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 4:30 AM > > Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior > > Hi, > > Yes, "WLAN_ACTIVE" here is just both TX and RX activity. > > So if it were working, that would stay low. > > > > adrian > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
