1. 20 8月, 2009 1 次提交
  2. 14 8月, 2009 4 次提交
  3. 05 8月, 2009 1 次提交
  4. 25 7月, 2009 2 次提交
    • R
      iwlwifi: make debug level more user friendly · a562a9dd
      Reinette Chatre 提交于
      * Deprecate the "debug50" module parameter used to obtain
        5000 series and up debugging. Replace it with "debug" module
        parameter to match with original driver and be consistent
        between them. The "debug50" module parameter can still be used,
        except that the module parameter is not writable in keeping
        with its previous state. We currently just mark it as "deprecated"
        and do not have it in the feature-removal-schedule. Some more
        cleanup of module parameters needs to be done and can then be
        entered together.
      
      * Only make "debug" module parameters visible if the driver
        is compiled with CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEBUG. This will eliminate
        a lot of confusion where users think they have set debug flags
        but yet cannot see any debug output.
      
      * Make module parameters writable. This eliminates the need for the
        "debug_level" sysfs file, which can now also be deprecated and
        added to feature-removal-schedule. This file is in significant
        use though with many iwlwifi documents and text referring users
        to it. We can thus not take its removal lightly and keep it around.
      
      With iwlcore shared between iwlagn and iwl3945 we really do not need
      debug module parameters for each but can instead have one debug
      module parameter for the iwlcore module. The same issue is here as
      with the sysfs file - a lot of iwlwifi documentation and text (like
      bug reports) rely on iwlagn and iwl3945 having this module parameter,
      so changing this to a module parameter of iwlcore will have significant
      impact and we do not do this for that reason.
      
      One consequence of this patch is that if a user is running a system
      with both 3945 and later hardware then the setting of the one module
      parameter will affect the value of the other. The likelihood of this
      seems low - and even if this setup is present it does not seem like an
      issue for both modules to run with the same debug level.
      Signed-off-by: NReinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJohn W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
      a562a9dd
    • W
      iwlwifi: fix rx signal quality reporting in dmesg · 244294e8
      Wey-Yi Guy 提交于
      Fix quality incorrectly reported as signal strength value.
      Signed-off-by: NWey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NReinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJohn W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
      244294e8
  5. 11 7月, 2009 2 次提交
  6. 23 5月, 2009 4 次提交
  7. 23 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  8. 10 2月, 2009 2 次提交
  9. 30 1月, 2009 5 次提交
  10. 20 12月, 2008 1 次提交
    • Z
      iwlwifi: use GFP_KERNEL to allocate Rx SKB memory · f1bc4ac6
      Zhu Yi 提交于
      Previously we allocate Rx SKB with GFP_ATOMIC flag. This is because we need
      to hold a spinlock to protect the two rx_used and rx_free lists operation
      in the rxq.
      
      	spin_lock();
      	...
      	element = rxq->rx_used.next;
      	element->skb = alloc_skb(..., GFP_ATOMIC);
      	list_del(element);
      	list_add_tail(&element->list, &rxq->rx_free);
      	...
      	spin_unlock();
      
      After spliting the rx_used delete and rx_free insert into two operations,
      we don't require the skb allocation in an atomic context any more (the
      function itself is scheduled in a workqueue).
      
      	spin_lock();
      	...
      	element = rxq->rx_used.next;
      	list_del(element);
      	...
      	spin_unlock();
      	...
      	element->skb = alloc_skb(..., GFP_KERNEL);
      	...
      	spin_lock()
      	...
      	list_add_tail(&element->list, &rxq->rx_free);
      	...
      	spin_unlock();
      
      This patch should fix the "iwlagn: Can not allocate SKB buffers" warning
      we see recently.
      Signed-off-by: NZhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>
      Acked-by: NTomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
      Cc: stable@kernel.org
      Signed-off-by: NJohn W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
      f1bc4ac6
  11. 13 12月, 2008 7 次提交
  12. 26 11月, 2008 1 次提交
  13. 22 11月, 2008 2 次提交
  14. 19 11月, 2008 1 次提交
    • J
      iwlagn: fix RX skb alignment · 4018517a
      Johannes Berg 提交于
      So I dug deeper into the DMA problems I had with iwlagn and a kind soul
      helped me in that he said something about pci-e alignment and mentioned
      the iwl_rx_allocate function to check for crossing 4KB boundaries. Since
      there's 8KB A-MPDU support, crossing 4k boundaries didn't seem like
      something the device would fail with, but when I looked into the
      function for a minute anyway I stumbled over this little gem:
      
      	BUG_ON(rxb->dma_addr & (~DMA_BIT_MASK(36) & 0xff));
      
      Clearly, that is a totally bogus check, one would hope the compiler
      removes it entirely. (Think about it)
      
      After fixing it, I obviously ran into it, nothing guarantees the
      alignment the way you want it,  because of the way skbs and their
      headroom are allocated. I won't explain that here nor double-check that
      I'm right, that goes beyond what most of the CC'ed people care about.
      
      So then I came up with the patch below, and so far my system has
      survived minutes with 64K pages, when it would previously fail in
      seconds. And I haven't seen a single instance of the TX bug either. But
      when you see the patch it'll be pretty obvious to you why.
      
      This should fix the following reported kernel bugs:
      
      http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11596
      http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
      http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11983
      
      I haven't checked if there are any elsewhere, but I suppose RHBZ will
      have a few instances too...
      
      I'd like to ask anyone who is CC'ed (those are people I know ran into
      the bug) to try this patch.
      
      I am convinced that this patch is correct in spirit, but I haven't
      understood why, for example, there are so many unmap calls. I'm not
      entirely convinced that this is the only bug leading to the TX reply
      errors.
      Signed-off-by: NJohannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
      Signed-off-by: NJohn W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
      4018517a
  15. 01 11月, 2008 1 次提交
  16. 01 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  17. 16 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  18. 04 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  19. 23 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  20. 05 8月, 2008 1 次提交