On 2018-02-10 14:56, Kai Heng Feng wrote: > >> On 9 Feb 2018, at 3:16 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sure, but we have to make sure that we don't create regressions on >> existing systems. For example, did you test this with any system which >> don't support btcoex? (just asking, haven't tested this myself) > > No not really, but I will definitely test it. > The only module I have that uses ath9k is Dell’s DW1707. > How do I check if it support btcoex or not? I just reviewed the code again, and I am sure that we cannot merge this patch. Enabling the btcoex parameter makes the driver enable a whole bunch of code starting timers, listening to some GPIOs, etc. On non-btcoex systems, some of those GPIOs might be floating or even connected to different things, which could cause a lot of undefined behavior. This is simply too big a risk, so there absolutely needs to be a whitelist for systems that need this, otherwise it has to remain disabled by default. - Felix
