From: Luis R. Rodriguez <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:16:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120312201650.GG26059@tux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5DBED4.4050500@qca.qualcomm.com>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> >>From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
> >>
> >>not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of
> >>chipsets are obselete ?
> >NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally
> >removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need
> >to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code.
>
> IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK!
> sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to
> quickly check with the HAL code.
"HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other
way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK.
Luis
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
<ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:16:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120312201650.GG26059@tux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5DBED4.4050500@qca.qualcomm.com>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> >>From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
> >>
> >>not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of
> >>chipsets are obselete ?
> >NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally
> >removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need
> >to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code.
>
> IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK!
> sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to
> quickly check with the HAL code.
"HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other
way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK.
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-12 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-12 5:57 [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 5:57 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2012-03-12 9:02 ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-12 9:16 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:16 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:41 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:41 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 20:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2012-03-12 20:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-03-13 4:36 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-13 4:36 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:44 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:44 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
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=20120312201650.GG26059@tux \
--to=rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/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.