[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d1nxt3y9.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 17:37:50 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: "Pan\, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@...lcomm.com>,
"linux-next\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"ath9k-devel\@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org>,
"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Miaoqing Pan <miaoqing@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request
(Fixing top posting)
"Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@....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@...ethink.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists