On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Sujith <m.sujith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> > From the original log: >>>> > ath5k_pci 0000:01:00.0: registered as '' >>>> >>>> That comes from >>>> >>>> dev_info(&pdev->dev, "registered as '%s'\n", wiphy_name(hw->wiphy)); >>>> >>>> which means that may be buggy too as wiphy_name() gets >>>> >>>> return wiphy->dev.bus_id; >>>> >>>> and we only have set at that point wiphy->dev.parent IIRC. >>>> >>> >>> Nope, parent is set after that call in SET_IEEE80211_DEV() >>> phy[x] gets assigned in alloc_hw(). >>> >>> So why is it NULL even if alloc_hw() succeeds ? >> >> Parent is wiphy->dev.parent not wiphy->dev though Sujith is right, wiphy->dev.bus_id should be set by the time that's printed, since wiphy_new in alloc_hw fills it in. Curiouser and curiouser. I look forward to this being an obvious and embarrassing bug :) > So I'm at work for another 4 or 5 hours, but I should have a chance to > hack at anything tonight you guys want me to. Let me know if the > earlier suggestions in this thread still apply. I think the printks will still be useful, if only to verify we're on the right track. Which compat-wireless version are you using? BTW from kerneloops, several people are having this with other drivers than ath5k. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- 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
