Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 9/6/18 6:16 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> This struct is used as argument to ath10k_core_register in order to >>> make it easier to add more bus parameters in the future. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> 12 patches applied to ath-next branch of ath.git, thanks. >> >> c0d8d565787c ath10k: add struct ath10k_bus_params >> 7c2dd6154fc2 ath10k: add device type enum to ath10k_bus_params >> 367c899f622c ath10k: add bus type check in ath10k_init_hw_params >> 9faaa14387fb ath10k: use hw_params.num_peers for num_tids in TLV init >> 4875e0b52085 ath10k: add per target config of max_num_peers >> e66d5361127a ath10k: DMA related fixes for high latency devices >> 852d1bf86a5b ath10k: add HTT TX HL ops >> d4e7f553eec3 ath10k: add HTT RX HL ops >> 4daacc950d4d ath10k: htt: RX ring config HL support >> a2097d6444c3 ath10k: htt: High latency TX support >> f88d49345040 ath10k: htt: High latency RX support >> 37f62c0d5822 ath10k: wmi: disable softirq's while calling ieee80211_rx >> > > I am afraid that one of the patches in this series causes a regression > for PCI devices :( > > The patch is: > > 4875e0b52085 ath10k: add per target config of max_num_peers > > With this patch I got an error during driver load. > Reverting the patch solved the problem. > > I discovered this yesterday when I was setting up a test AP with an > ath10k pcie device. > I thought it would be a good idea to use my own tree just to make sure > it works with PCI, and apparently it didn't work. > I did some bisecting and the patch mentioned above turned out to be the culprit. > I have not looked into why it fails yet (I think it is related to a > bad num_peers value in the ath10k_hw_params_list array), > I just noticed that reverting the patch solved the problem > > I was actually planning on submitting a v6 series with this patch > removed, but you were faster. Yeah, sorry about this. I noticed you marked the patchset as RFC but as they looked so good I decided to take them anyway :) But thanks for the quick fixes which I have applied and I think everything is good now, right? -- Kalle Valo
