From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:65383 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932317Ab0DPT5G convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:57:06 -0400 Received: by pwj9 with SMTP id 9so2305928pwj.19 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:57:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100416194335.GF8554@tuxdriver.com> References: <1271367582-992-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1271367582-992-10-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20100416194335.GF8554@tuxdriver.com> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:56:44 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/97] ath9k_hw: Move some RF ops to the private callbacks To: "John W. Linville" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:43 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:38:14PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> The PHY split is easier done in a few steps. First move >> the RF ops to the private ops and rename them accordingly. >> We split PHY stuff up first for the AR5008 and AR9002 >> families. There are some callbacks that AR9002 share >> with the AR5008 familiy so we set those first, if AR9002 >> has some different callbacks it will override them upon >> hardware init. >> >> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez >> --- >>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/Makefile            |    3 +- >>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ani.c               |    1 + >>  .../net/wireless/ath/ath9k/{phy.c => ar5008_phy.c} |  884 ++++++++++---------- > > In general, it is better to do renames in a separate patch -- the > fixups are easier in cases where something else hit that file before > your patch is applied.  It might also help if you based big patches > (or big series) on wireless-next-2.6 instead of wireless-testing, as I > need to apply them to wireless-next-2.6 before I can send them to Dave. > > In this case, a patch that wireless-testing picked-up from linux-2.6 > and which isn't in wireless-next-2.6 (and probably not net-next-2.6 > either) causes this patch to fail to apply to wirless-next-2.6. > I'll fix it up, in the interest of putting this series behind us... Thanks for addressing it on your end this time, next time we'll rebase on top of wireless-next-2.6 when doing a larger series. I don't expect this to happen quite often though. This was just a new hardware family, which happens so far about every what, 4-5 years? Thanks!!! Luis