On Friday 02 January 2009 19:59:15 Stefanik Gábor wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday 02 January 2009 19:52:49 Stefanik Gábor wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan > >> <vasanth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vasanth@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath9k/ath9k.h | 5 +++++ > >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath9k/hw.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath9k/main.c | 9 +++++++-- > >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath9k/reg.h | 10 ++++++++++ > >> > 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > > >> > <snip> > >> > >> Probably a NOBTCOEX modparam might be a good idea - when implementing > >> BT coexistence in b43, a lot of non-BT-aware cards failed to work > > > > And what makes you think that atheros also ships cards with broken btcoex support? > > We can never know what vendors will do Well, I'd say that applies to any feature. Should we add modparams for all new features from now on? I'd say we simply apply this patch and see what happens. Most likely nothing, because the btcoex implementation in the atheros hardware works differently anyway. -- Greetings, Michael. -- 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
