On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 19 March 2010 21:41:49 John W. Linville wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/ssb/scan.c b/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> > index 0d6c028..6d51895 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ssb/scan.c
> > @@ -306,6 +306,10 @@ int ssb_bus_scan(struct ssb_bus *bus,
> > }
> > tmp = scan_read32(bus, 0, SSB_CHIPCO_CAP);
> > bus->chipco.capabilities = tmp;
> > + if (bus->chipco.dev->id.revision >= 11) {
> > + tmp = scan_read32(bus, 0, SSB_CHIPCO_CHIPSTAT);
> > + bus->chipco.status = tmp;
> > + }
>
> Hm, Ok. There's another issue here. We're that early in the scan that
> id.xxxx is not assigned, yet. I think chipco.dev might even be NULL here, so
> it'd crash.
> This gets a little bit ugly. The revisions are read later in the scan function.
> And as you can see there the actual read is pretty ugly, too.
>
> What if we do not read the status _that_ early? We're really very very
> early here. If you move the read into the chipcommon driver init, it will be much
> easier.
Yeah, that makes sense. Patch to follow...
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready.
--
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
