[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mwhv9uha.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:29:04 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi()
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Well, as this series is small I thought it could quickly go thru your
>>>> tree. But since ipr had conflicts, there is no point routing all patches
>>>> altogether, so up to you guys. The wil6210 patch is already in your pci/msi
>>>> branch though.
>>>
>>> It's in pci/msi, but that's not in my -next branch yet, so I can
>>> easily drop it. Do drivers/net/wireless patches normally follow a
>>> different path than the other drivers/net patches? The wil6210 and
>>> ath10k patches look just like the others in the 34-patch series (bnx2,
>>> bnx2x, tg3, bna, cxgb3, etc.), so I thought it would make more sense
>>> to include them there.
>>
>> ath10k patches normally go through my ath.git tree to Linville and then
>> to David Miller. To avoid conflicts I would prefer to take ath10k
>> patches to my tree whenever possible.
>
> OK, I won't do anything with ath10k (I haven't applied it anywhere).
I have now taken the ath10k patches to my pending branch, will apply
them soon.
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists