Re: [PATCH 09/28] Remove ATHEROS_AR231X

Sergey Ryazanov
2014-09-10T10:33:57Z

2014-09-09 22:27 GMT+04:00, John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:02:10PM +0400, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>> 2014-09-05 15:33 GMT+04:00 Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>:
>> > Hi Sergey,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 15:12 +0400, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>> >> 2014-09-05 14:10 GMT+04:00, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>:
>> >> > On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 13:46 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>> >> >> Having this conversation every rc1 is getting a bit silly. Could
>> >> >> Jiri
>> >> >> e.a. perhaps set some specific deadline for ATHEROS_AR231X to be
>> >> >> submitted?
>> >> >
>> >> > I waited until rc3. Have you seen any activity on this front? If
>> >> > not,
>> >> > should I resend the patch that removes the code in mainline that
>> >> > depends
>> >> > on ATHEROS_AR231X (ie, AHB bus support)?
>> >> >
>> >> Recent activity always could be found in [1]. Now I finish another one
>> >> round of cleanups and have a plan to fix several things (you can
>> >> always find something that you really want to improve). But if you
>> >> insist I could immediately switch to "send upstream" mode. And seems
>> >> that this would be better approach.
>> >>
>> >> 1. https://dev.openwrt.org/log/trunk/target/linux/atheros
>> >
>> > And where can the related PULL requests or patch submissions be found?
>> >
>> I have not sent patches yet, since I thought that it would be easier
>> to cleanup them in openwrt tree and then send them upstream.
>
> That excuse has worn a bit thin. Perhaps Paul should repost his
> removal and you can add a revert to the start of your patch series?
>
As for me, I do not like such flapping, but you have a final say in
this discussion as a maintainer.

--
BR,
Sergey