Bug#492251: crashes here also, not only on 2.6.25 but also on 2.6.26

[Kel Modderman]

On Thursday 18 September 2008 19:01:26 Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Package: madwifi-source
> Version: 1:0.9.4+r3772.20080716-1
> Followup-For: Bug #492251
> 
> I've been having crashes also on my laptop with the new version of
> madwifi-source, I needed to use new versions because the laptop seems to
> have a Atheros AR2425 (AR5007EG) which was not supported by stable madwifi
> or ath5k. This is the data of the card:
> 
> 01:00.0 0200: 168c:001c (rev 01)
>         Subsystem: 103c:137b
>         Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx-
>         Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
>         Latency: 0, Cache Line Size: 128 bytes
>         Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 16
>         Region 0: Memory at 91300000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K]
>         Capabilities: <access denied>
>         Kernel driver in use: ath_pci
>         Kernel modules: ath5k, ath_pci
> 
> MadWifi: ath_attach: Switching rfkill capability off.
> wifi0: Atheros AR2425 chip found (MAC 14.2, PHY SChip 7.0, Radio 10.2)
> ath_pci: wifi0: Atheros 5424/2424: mem=0x91300000, irq=16
> 
> The driver was hanging the computer from time to time, I even tried to
> upgrade other machines which had stable madwifi driven cards to the new
> version of the driver with similar results, they also crashed and they had
> been stable before. This is not only on the 2.6.25 kernel but also on
> current 2.6.26, it is a thing with the driver, nothing to do with the kernel
> it is happening to me with current packages and current kernel on all my
> atheros hardware.
> 
> I'm currently testing the new "released" hal code by the OpenWrt.org, DD-WRT
> and MakSat guys and seems much more stable, this is only my third day with
> but no problems have appeared so far.
> 
> I know it is difficult to choose a version of the soft when it comes to a
> release, having the stable 0.9.4 wouldn't give support to the guys with new
> hardware like me, but on the other hand, providing a unstable driver is not
> good either, at least if there is a stable one for most hardware. We are
> really advanced on the release cycle but... I'm wondering if having a stable
> package plus a development one wouldn't have been a good idea here.
> 
> Regards...

If you want to take over maintenance of it you are welcome. I have little
motivation. Maybe jump in on the current thread on debian-release to find
other people who want this new binary HAL crack.

Thanks, Kel.