From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 22 13:07:41 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB47B1065670; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:07:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1C58FC18; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6682646B0A; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:07:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5915B93F; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:07:40 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Alexander Best Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:02:27 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p8; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201112211716.pBLHGhDH078507@svn.freebsd.org> <201112211700.42772.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111221232754.GA51331@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20111221232754.GA51331@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112220802.27434.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:07:40 -0500 (EST) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric , svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r228785 - in head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal: ar5210 ar5211 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:07:42 -0000 On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:27:54 pm Alexander Best wrote: > On Wed Dec 21 11, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:52:04 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > Erm, why did you do this without first getting clearance from someone > > > who has the hardware to test it? > > > > > > Just because it looks obviously wrong to you, doesn't at all mean that > > > it's "wrong". It's quite possible that the driver _requires_ those > > > bits to be written to the hardware as 0. > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate it if would please revert this and other ath/hal > > > changes until I've had time to research them and test them out. > > > > I agree it should be reviewed, but if you are seriously depending on > > the fact that the shifted values are beyond the edge of the word boundary > > and so the result "wraps" to zero, then I'd question the sanity of your code. > > i disagree. You don't think changes should be reviewed (that's what I said above, I did not necessarily say it should be reverted)? That's way out in left field if that is what you really think. As for reverting the changes, I think they are small enough that is probably a bit overboard unless someone else reports an actual problem with them. (Specifically, I don't think the bar is high enough in this case to warrant a reversion.) However, I think that for future changes, Dimitry should get these sort of changes reviewed before committing them. -- John Baldwin