On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:02:41AM -0500, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >> From: Andy Green <andy.green@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> From: Andy Green <andy.green@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> On wcn3620, firmware response to trigger_ba uses the new, larger >> "v2" format > >> - ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check(wcn->hal_buf, wcn->hal_rsp_len); >> + ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2(wcn, wcn->hal_buf, >> + wcn->hal_rsp_len); > > It's unclear from the changelog -- is it safe to call > wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2 on the 3660/3680 as well? > > Is wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check() still needed? > I had to introduce this on one of my 3680 devices recently to silence the error described originally by Andy. So it not only seems safe but seems required. But still, based on how the code was written this doesn't seem to be the case on all versions of the firmware or all chips(?) Regards, Bjorn -- 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
