linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] Motorola Droid 4: Add WL1285C support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <F455FC62-BA1C-4A59-B526-DDB90362CFE8@holtmann.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 May 2017 17:02:13 +0200
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] Motorola Droid 4: Add WL1285C support

Hi Rob,

>> Motorola Droid 4 uses a WL1285C, as visible on iFixit [0]. This
>> fixes the DT file to use correct compatible for the wifi node
>> and adds the bluetooth node.
>> 
>> [0] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Motorola+Droid+4+Teardown/7759#s31961
>> 
>> Changes to PATCHv1:
>> - use proper compatible value for bluetooth / shared transport
>> - add patches fixing wlcore compatible for Droid 4
>> 
>> -- Sebastian
>> 
>> Sebastian Reichel (4):
>>  wlcore: add wl1285 compatible
>>  ARM: dts: omap4-droid4: Use wl1285 for wifi compatible
>>  Bluetooth: hci_ll: Add compatible values for more WL chips
>>  ARM: dts: omap4-droid4: Add bluetooth
> 
> For the series,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>

so now the question is if we merge this through a single maintainer or have each maintainer take the pieces? I would almost suggest that Dave Miller takes this directly into net-next to make this smoother.

Regards

Marcel