On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Ah, I see, yes, oh man. Well this is good :) > Curiouser and curiouser. I look > forward to this being an obvious and embarrassing bug :) I sure hope so. >> 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. Yeah I ran into it with iwlagn a few days ago but never found the root cause, it was sporadic. Luis -- 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
