Merge branch 'wireless-2.6' into wireless-next-2.6
Patch "iwlwifi: work around passive scan issue" was merged into
wireless-2.6, but touched a lot of code since modified (and moved)
in wireless-next-2.6. This caused some conflicts.
Conflicts:
drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-scan.c
Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
index 4bd0aec..a273474 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-lib.c
@@ -1395,16 +1395,29 @@
rate = IWL_RATE_1M_PLCP;
rate_flags = RATE_MCS_CCK_MSK;
}
- scan->good_CRC_th = 0;
+ scan->good_CRC_th = IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH_DISABLED;
break;
case IEEE80211_BAND_5GHZ:
rate = IWL_RATE_6M_PLCP;
/*
- * If active scaning is requested but a certain channel
- * is marked passive, we can do active scanning if we
- * detect transmissions.
+ * If active scanning is requested but a certain channel is
+ * marked passive, we can do active scanning if we detect
+ * transmissions.
+ *
+ * There is an issue with some firmware versions that triggers
+ * a sysassert on a "good CRC threshold" of zero (== disabled),
+ * on a radar channel even though this means that we should NOT
+ * send probes.
+ *
+ * The "good CRC threshold" is the number of frames that we
+ * need to receive during our dwell time on a channel before
+ * sending out probes -- setting this to a huge value will
+ * mean we never reach it, but at the same time work around
+ * the aforementioned issue. Thus use IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH_NEVER
+ * here instead of IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH_DISABLED.
*/
- scan->good_CRC_th = is_active ? IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH : 0;
+ scan->good_CRC_th = is_active ? IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH_DEFAULT :
+ IWL_GOOD_CRC_TH_NEVER;
break;
default:
IWL_WARN(priv, "Invalid scan band count\n");