From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from server1.vittgam.net ([213.239.197.142]:63561 "EHLO mail.vittgam.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752197AbcJDSOV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:14:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:14:10 +0200 From: "Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" To: Kalle Valo Cc: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: Move generic entries below specific ones in =?UTF-8?Q?ath=5Fpci=5Fid=5Ftable=2E?= In-Reply-To: <87k2dop15n.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <87k2dop15n.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> Message-ID: (sfid-20161004_201425_837274_34F71E73) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On 04/10/2016 17:46:44 CEST, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" writes: > >> If generic entries are positioned above specific ones, then the >> former will be matched first and used instead of the latter. >> >> Cc: >> Cc: >> Cc: >> Cc: >> Signed-off-by: Vittorio Gambaletta > > Why? What kind of bug you are fixing? You are not really describing the > problem you are trying fix. The active_high LED of my Wistron DNMA-92 is still being recognized as active_low on 4.7.6 mainline. When I was preparing my former patch to fix that, I initially added the PCI_DEVICE_SUB section for 0x0029/0x2096 above the PCI_VDEVICE section for 0x0029; but then I moved the former below the latter after seeing how 0x002A sections were sorted in the file. I must have somehow messed up with testing, because I tested the final version of that patch before sending it, and it was apparently working; but now it is not working on 4.7.6 mainline. With this patch, 0x0029/0x2096 has finally got active_high LED on 4.7.6. So, after seeing that the rest of the file is sorted this way (generic section after the specific ones), I concluded that the 0x002A sorting was wrong in the first place, and so is 0x0029. Then I sent this patch to fix this. > And your email headers look weird: > > To: > Cc: > Cc: > Cc: > Cc: > Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:00:56 +0200 > > What software are you using to send this? Only one CC header is valid > according to the spec (thanks to Luca for checking) even though mailers > seem to handle multiple CC headers. But for example my patchwork script > fails with this and uses only the first CC header. Sorry about this, I used a custom mailer to send the patch since I was having problems with git-send-email...