RE: ath9k gpio request

["Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@qti.qualcomm.com>]

Got it, thanks.  There is no difference of the changes for AR9462 which is the chip Sudip tested.

Thanks,
Miaoqing

-----Original Message-----
From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kvalo@codeaurora.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 10:38 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing <miaoqing@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>; Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>; ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@qca.qualcomm.com>; linux-next@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Miaoqing Pan <miaoqing@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

(Fixing top posting)

"Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@qti.qualcomm.com> writes:

>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
>>> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO                          16
>>>   #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO                                 16
>>>   #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO                                 23
>>> -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO                                 10
>>> -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO                                 12
>>> +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO                                 14
>>> +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO                                 11
>>>   #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO                                 18
>>>   #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO                                 24
>>>   #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO                                 23
>>> @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
>>>   #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000F4FF
>>>   #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000F4FF
>>>   #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
>>> -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK                        0x000003FF
>>> -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK                        0x00000FFF
>>> +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK                        0x00003FFF
>>> +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK                        0x000007FF
>>>   #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
>>>   #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
>>>   #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
>>
>> solves the problem.
>>
>> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk>
>
> Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/

But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?

And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc release.

Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the patch from the patchwork link above.

--
Kalle Valo