From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 19:11:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] ssb/b43(legacy): clean dangling cores workarounds In-Reply-To: <4DC6CD8C.6080104@lwfinger.net> References: <1304874564-6426-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <4DC6CD8C.6080104@lwfinger.net> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Larry Finger Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= , b43-dev@lists.infradead.org 2011/5/8 Larry Finger : > On 05/08/2011 12:09 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: >> >> There is no perfect place for this workarounds, but keeping it in ssb >> sounds >> more reasonable. >> 1) We already have in ssb similar workarounds for different cores >> 2) We do not register not working devices in system >> 3) We do not duplicate code in b43 and b43legacy >> >> Rafa? Mi?ecki (3): >> ? ssb: update list of devices supporting multiple 80211 cores >> ? b43: drop ssb-duplicated workaround for dangling cores >> ? b43legacy: drop ssb-duplicated workaround for dangling cores >> >> ?drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c ? ? ? | ? 17 ----------------- >> ?drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/main.c | ? 18 ------------------ >> ?drivers/ssb/scan.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ? ?5 ++++- >> ?3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > First of all, a minor grammatical mistake. It should be "this workaround" as > there is only only one workaround discussed here. > > Secondly, "we do not register not working" is a little awkward. "We do not > register inactive devices..." would be better. > > Finally, this commit message will never show up in the git commit logs. I > think this info is valuable, thus it should be in the real commits. > > My suggestion for the [1/3] patch is something like: > > "Many of the BCM43xx chips contain cores that are attached to the SSB, but > are inactive as they do not connect to the external environment. These must > not be registered. Several of these types are handled in driver ssb; > however, the specific case of an inactive 802.11 cores is now treated in b43 > and b43legacy. Although the current setup works, this minor change will > place all such workarounds in ssb, and simplify the code in drivers b43 and > b43legacy." > > In each of the other two patches, add a commit message something like: > > "Remove the code to detect inactive 802.11 cores, as that function is now > done in ssb." Thank you for reviewing. > I have not yet tested the patches, but will do so soon. Oh, do you have some device with 2 active cores? Nice :) -- Rafa?