[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140213131802.GA21757@dhcp-26-207.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:18:02 +0100
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To: Vladimir Kondratiev <qca_vkondrat@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>, wil6210@....qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to
pci_disable_msi()
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:30:44PM +0200, Kalle Valo 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.
CC'ing Vladimir, in case he decides to do the same with wil6210.
> --
> Kalle Valo
--
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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