linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/12] staging: r8188eu: power management cleanup

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:37:33 +0200
From:   Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] staging: r8188eu: power management cleanup

Thus wrote Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@...uxfoundation.org):

> On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 04:15:09PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > Remove some unused parts of the power management code.

> > Tested with Edimax EW-7811Un V2 on an ARM32 embedded system.

> > Martin Kaiser (12):
> >   staging: r8188eu: btcoex_rfon is always false
> >   staging: r8188eu: setting HW_VAR_SET_RPWM does nothing
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove write-only variable cpwm
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove write-only variable tog
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove rtw_set_rpwm
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove unused power state defines
> >   staging: r8188eu: _free_pwrlock is empty
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove unused pwrctrl definitions
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove unused enum and array
> >   staging: r8188eu: rtw_set_ips_deny is not used
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable cpwm_tog
> >   staging: r8188eu: remove unused variable b_hw_radio_off

> I applied a subset of these.  Please rebase and resend the reset.

I sent a v2 of this patchset with the outstanding patches as a followup
to this set. I hope that this is generally the right thing to do after
the maintainer applies some patches of a set.

Thanks & best regards,
Martin