Re: [PATCH V3 4/9] brcmfmac: add struct brcmf_pub parameter to the __brcmf_err

["Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>]

On 2017-02-08 15:52, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> writes:
> 
>> On 2017-02-08 10:54, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>>> On 2-2-2017 22:33, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>> 
>>>> This will allow getting struct device reference from the passed
>>>> brcmf_pub for the needs of dev_err. More detailed messages are 
>>>> really
>>>> important for home routers which frequently have 2 (or even 3)
>>>> wireless
>>>> cards supported by brcmfmac.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that all calls are yet to be updated as for now brcmf_err macro
>>>> always passes NULL. This will be handled in following patch to make
>>>> this
>>>> change easier to review.
>>> 
>>> I prefer brcmf_err() to have struct device reference directly
>>> instead of
>>> using brcmf_pub. That would remove the need for patches 5 till 7 as 
>>> bus
>>> specific code already has struct device. So I have acked the first
>>> three
>>> patches, but would like to revise 8 and 9.
>>> 
>>> Kalle,
>>> 
>>> I acked the first three patches. Can those three still go in for 
>>> 4.11?
>> 
>> Sounds OK to me. Kalle, I ack Arend's request if it isn't too late.
> 
> Ok, I'll try. My plan is to get everything ready for linux-next by
> tomorrow morning (Finland time), let's see how it goes.
> 
> Related to this, Rafał are you still deleting the patches from 
> patchwork
> which should be dropped? I think you are as I can't see patches 4-9
> anymore.
> 
> Now that my patchwork setup is much better (compared to how it was over
> a year ago) I would actually prefer that you don't do that anymore. The
> problem is that when you delete the patch from patchwork it completely
> disappears from patchwork and I can't check the patch or discussion
> anymore. And I'm so accustomed to use patchwork that only seldom I use
> email to find the patch.
> 
> So it would be better to leave the patches as is and let me drop them
> (=change the state Changes Requested, Rejected or similar), which is
> trivial with my script. Otherwise I get this unsure feeling of what
> happened to the patch :)

Yeah, that was me (marked 4-9 as Changes Requested), sorry ;) I won't be 
messing with patches in the future.