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  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]
Date:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 01:51:37 +0000
From:	"Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@....qualcomm.com>
To:	Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@...lcomm.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miaoqing Pan <miaoqing@...eaurora.org>
Subject: RE: ath9k gpio request

Got it, thanks.  There is no difference of the changes for AR9462 which is the chip Sudip tested.

Thanks,
Miaoqing

-----Original Message-----
From: Kalle Valo [mailto:kvalo@...eaurora.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 10:38 PM
To: Pan, Miaoqing <miaoqing@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>; Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>; ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>; linux-next@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; ath9k-devel@...ts.ath9k.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