On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:34:20PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:37:08PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> >>>@@ -257,7 +263,11 @@ void bcm43xx_leds_update(struct bcm43xx_
> >>> continue;
> >>> #endif /* CONFIG_BCM43XX_DEBUG */
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 05:34, Larry Finger wrote:
> John,
>
> I had not responded to Michael's comments as I heard from another user with
> thousands of these
> assertions in his logs, and I have been waiting for his sprom values and
> hoped to make a single
> patch. It is good, however
John,
I had not responded to Michael's comments as I heard from another user with thousands of these
assertions in his logs, and I have been waiting for his sprom values and hoped to make a single
patch. It is good, however, that you pushed the patch upstream.
John W. Linville wrote:
On Wed,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:37:08PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > @@ -257,7 +263,11 @@ void bcm43xx_leds_update(struct bcm43xx_
> > continue;
> > #endif /* CONFIG_BCM43XX_DEBUG */
> > default:
> > - assert(0);
> > + if (bcm43xx
On Wednesday 18 October 2006 06:38, Larry Finger wrote:
> The bcm43xx driver uses 4 locations in the devices sprom to determine
> the behavior of the leds. Certain defaults are assigned if all bits are
> set in those locations. On at least one BCM4303 chip, the sprom contains
> values other than th
The bcm43xx driver uses 4 locations in the devices sprom to determine
the behavior of the leds. Certain defaults are assigned if all bits are
set in those locations. On at least one BCM4303 chip, the sprom contains
values other than the default, which executes an assertion placed in the
default cas
