From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 22:00:45 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20097106566C; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:00:45 +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 E57088FC0A; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B42846B06; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DDAEB941; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:00:44 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Adrian Chadd Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:00:42 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p8; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201112211716.pBLHGhDH078507@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112211700.42772.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:00:44 -0500 (EST) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric Subject: Re: svn commit: r228785 - in head/sys/dev/ath/ath_hal: ar5210 ar5211 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:00:45 -0000 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. -- John Baldwin