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: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-12 5:57 [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2012-03-12 9:16 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 9:41 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 20:16 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2012-03-13 4:36 ` 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 \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=nbd@openwrt.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).