On Monday 08 May 2006 12:48, Sam Leffler wrote:
> If I had intended stable users to try this code I would have:
>
> 1. posted to stable@
> 2. provided specific changes for those users (e.g. a patch)
>
> You will note my initial post about a new hal was done to both mailing
> lists. I did not post
If I had intended stable users to try this code I would have:
1. posted to stable@
2. provided specific changes for those users (e.g. a patch)
You will note my initial post about a new hal was done to both mailing
lists. I did not post this hal to stable because I did not want to deal
with pe
On Sunday 07 May 2006 22:09, Sam Leffler wrote:
> I don't know why you are posting patches like this; they include changes
> that are not MFC'd for specific reasons. I've already told you
> privately that the new hal has nothing to do with the issue of
> supporting the 1/2 and 1/4-rate channels in
On Sunday 07 May 2006 21:39, JoaoBR wrote:
the former patch was the wrong one, sorry
João
--- if_ath.c.ori Sun May 7 20:38:42 2006
+++ if_ath.c Sun May 7 07:18:07 2006
@@ -293,7 +293,8 @@
if_initname(ifp, device_get_name(sc->sc_dev),
device_get_unit(sc->sc_dev));
- ah = ath_hal_attach(de
On Saturday 06 May 2006 21:17, Sam Leffler wrote:
> A new test snapshot is available at:
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sam/ath_hal-20060506.tgz
>
> This is 0.9.17.0 and is known to work on sparc (tested) and may well
> work on alpha (untested but likely the same issue that broke sparc).
>
> This c
