On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Sujith <m.sujith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Just curious, if you revert this patch and apply the ones I just >> posted, does it fix it, or is this patch required either way? > > Well, I don't see this patch in -testing, -next-2.6 or -2.6. > Maybe Linville overlooked this patch. > > Applying 4/5 and 5/5 from your series seems to fix the issue though. > I am able to suspend/resume without hiccups with UB95. > > But, I think this is purely an ath9k issue, mac80211 is probably right in > assuming that only devices that have been issued ~IEEE80211_CONF_IDLE > would have their radios enabled anyway. > > ath9k doesn't differentiate between init/start and enables the radio > (setting it to AWAKE mode) in the initialization sequence. > Why should mac80211 issue a CONF_IDLE notification when the device > was never powered up .. ? That's the thing, the device was powered up, lifted from idle, but we never got notified we are back in idle, since we stop the device but never issue the idle call since the open_count was already 0 after a device stop. 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
