From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: John Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano@broadcom.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Merging SSB upstream
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 03:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
So, now that mac80211 is merged upstream, I think it's
time to merge SSB and the b44-ssb port upstream.
Note that bcm43xx-mac80211 is _not_ ready for upstream, yet.
What do you think? I'd like to merge ssb as-is, although
the embedded-device parts are not quite finished, yet.
But they don't interfere with the non-embedded parts used
by b44 and the bcm43xx PCI cards.
So we _could_ remove the ssb-mips code, but I don't like to
do that for better maintainability. It doesn't hurt anyone IMO.
Some opinions?
--
Greetings Michael.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
To: John Linville <linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Gary Zambrano <zambrano-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
bcm43xx-dev-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Merging SSB upstream
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 03:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
So, now that mac80211 is merged upstream, I think it's
time to merge SSB and the b44-ssb port upstream.
Note that bcm43xx-mac80211 is _not_ ready for upstream, yet.
What do you think? I'd like to merge ssb as-is, although
the embedded-device parts are not quite finished, yet.
But they don't interfere with the non-embedded parts used
by b44 and the bcm43xx PCI cards.
So we _could_ remove the ssb-mips code, but I don't like to
do that for better maintainability. It doesn't hurt anyone IMO.
Some opinions?
--
Greetings Michael.
next reply other threads:[~2007-05-06 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-06 1:03 Michael Buesch [this message]
2007-05-06 1:03 ` Merging SSB upstream Michael Buesch
2007-05-06 2:00 ` John W. Linville
2007-05-06 2:00 ` John W. Linville
2007-05-06 9:44 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-06 9:44 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-06 17:38 ` John W. Linville
2007-05-06 18:44 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-06 18:44 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-06 3:11 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-06 3:11 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-05-06 9:41 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-07 16:43 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-07 16:43 ` Gary Zambrano
2007-05-07 20:35 ` Michael Buesch
2007-05-07 20:35 ` Michael Buesch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zambrano@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.