From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:47920 "EHLO mail-iw0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758236AbZKDWzz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:55:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14add3d10911041219j6ab25282re4f98d14029b1f68@mail.gmail.com> References: <20091104173151.28463.68742.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <14add3d10911041219j6ab25282re4f98d14029b1f68@mail.gmail.com> From: Julian Calaby Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:55:39 +1100 Message-ID: <646765f40911041455m7a6f55b8ka3ce95de7dd6ac6c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/41] rewritten rt2800 drivers To: Gertjan van Wingerde Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Bart, FWIW, this all looks good to me, except for these comments: 1. When you introduce struct rt2800_ops, it may telegraph your intentions more clearly if you introduce rt2800lib.h at the same time - this also means that we don't have (if only for a single patch) duplicate versions of this structure and it's associated code. 2. Patches #26-28 should arguably come before the conversions to use the struct rt2800_ops methods. 3. I don't get the reasoning behind patch #37 (remove useless ifdefs from rt2x00leds.h) but I'm going to assume that it's all right. 4. Patch #39 should arguably come earlier in the patch set as it's a general cleanup. Other than that, good work! Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/