From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]:64446 "EHLO mail-qy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753473Ab0IJDen (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:34:43 -0400 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so6826740qyk.19 for ; Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:34:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1283988329-44549-1-git-send-email-steve@cozybit.com> <1283988329-44549-6-git-send-email-steve@cozybit.com> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 20:34:41 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] libertas_tf: Moved firmware loading to probe in order to fetch MAC address From: Steve deRosier To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, javier@cozybit.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:13:52 -0700, Steve deRosier >> In the short term, can we limit libertas_tf to build as module only >> via Kconfig, and I can add the request_firmware_nowait() as a new >> feature later with a new patch? > > Certainly. I just wanted to point it out. This wasn't meant as > a comment that should stop merging of these patches. > >> Looking at the examples, it looks >> like the changes for this would be fairly involved and I would prefer >> to break such a change out separately. > > Yeah, I tried to do it in libertas_tf at some point last year and > failed miserably :-) > >> I'd like to get >> libertas_tf_sdio accepted as a base so I can then do smaller change >> sets going forward. Is that a reasonable plan or just plain silly? > > Makes sense to me. > In light of the above, and Julian's comments, I'm going to rework the libertas_tf patch set a little. I'll make the following two changes: 1. Restrict building to module-only for now. This avoids building it into the kernel which we know will break. Latter when I have time I'll happily do what's necessary to make the fix Johannes wants, but as it's not trivial I want to get a base down. 2. I'll change a few things around as Julian's advised so the patch set makes a bit more sense. I'll be also killing some inadvertent white-space changes that were mistakes. I think my mac80211 patch "mac80211: Fix dangling pointer in ieee80211_xmit" stands 100% alone and fixes a clear bug. I don't see any need to delay that one. It might be a few days before I get these in. Thanks, - Steve