Hi John,

Based on ours previous conversation, I understand the thermal throttling
patch is not being merge it, since it has a stupid bug I create and
being identify by Johannes, is it ok for you to merge the attached patch
with the original patch work while you ready to push?

Thanks

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 06:14 -0700, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > @@ -325,9 +283,15 @@ int iwl_power_update_mode(struct iwl_priv *priv, bool force)
> >  	else if (priv->cfg->supports_idle &&
> >  		 priv->hw->conf.flags & IEEE80211_CONF_IDLE)
> >  		iwl_static_sleep_cmd(priv, &cmd, IWL_POWER_INDEX_5, 20);
> > -	else if (tt->state >= IWL_TI_1)
> > -		iwl_static_sleep_cmd(priv, &cmd, tt->tt_power_mode, dtimper);
> > -	else if (!enabled)
> > +	else if (priv->cfg->ops->lib->tt_ops.lower_power_detection &&
> > +		 priv->cfg->ops->lib->tt_ops.tt_power_mode) {
> > +		if (priv->cfg->ops->lib->tt_ops.lower_power_detection(priv)) {
> > +			/* in thermal throttling low power state */
> > +			iwl_static_sleep_cmd(priv, &cmd,
> > +			    priv->cfg->ops->lib->tt_ops.tt_power_mode(priv),
> > +			    dtimper);
> > +		}
> > +	} else if (!enabled)
> >  		iwl_power_sleep_cam_cmd(priv, &cmd);
> >  	else if (priv->power_data.debug_sleep_level_override >= 0)
> >  		iwl_static_sleep_cmd(priv, &cmd,
> 
> This is very very broken because it adds an often-used code path that
> will not initialise "cmd" at all. It needs to be
> 
> ...
> else if (priv->...lower_power_detection &&
>          priv->...tt_power_mode &&
>          priv->...lower_power_detection(priv))
>         iwl_static_sleep_cmd(...)
> else if (!enabled)
> ...
> 
> johannes
>