On Mon, 18 May 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2009/5/19 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > >> On Tue, 19 May 2009, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > >>> > >>> This is already fixed on wireless-testing ;-) > >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/phy.c;h=d0d1c350025aebba1fe4e17a44550536a59951ba;hb=HEAD > >> > >> Thanks, but this does only half. Although I did not hit this in my laptop, > >> it can be an issue. If step[0] == step[1] you have the same problem. > >> > > > > Having the same power value for 2 different steps is something we can > > expect (although docs say that we expect the line to be monotonically > > increasing but anyway), having the same step twice is way out of spec, > > there is no way we can have the same step twice on EEPROM, only if we > > have a corrupted EEPROM (we need to add some sanity checks indeed here > > -> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-testing.git;a=blob;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath5k/eeprom.c;h=c56b494d417acd40d445d922f2861b53cc2315df;hb=HEAD#l910 > > to handle such a case but first we need to have a "default" eeprom > > dataset to fallback when we get such errors). > > Don't bother with busted EEPROMs, if its busted its busted. Chances > are the complexity we'd need to add to deal with such devices is > simply not worth it. My concern is that a busted EEPROM should not lock up the kernel, when we can avoid it. Put in a nasty WARN_ON if the steps are equal, and exit the routine. But don't let it go into an infinite loop and have the user wondering why their system just locked up. -- Steve -- 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
