Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch)

Alexey Zaytsev
2008-02-25T13:01:16Z

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > Neither of which seem like acceptable solutions for a 2.6.23 -> 2.6.24
> > > _regression_. Or maybe I am just too naive to believe Linus' statement
> > > on not letting the kernel regress...
> >
> > So, please sign-off the patch that we have, if you think it's right
> > and doesn't cause more regressions.
>
> I did look at the patch and can gladly add a:
>
> Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>
Thanks for reviewing. Was it the patch I sent to Larry Finger
with the subject line "[PATCH] Fix the bcm43xx driver breakage in 2.6.24/25"
or the patch I sent with the first email in this thread? The patches are
generally the same, but the one sent to Larry was split into two pieces
and the condition on which the bcm43xx config option was hidden
changed a bit.

> But this seems backwards. It was _your_ commit that broke the setup and
> the patch touches a driver _you're_ maintaining.
>
> So can we just revert commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
> ("[B44]: port to native ssb support") from 2.6.24 and you can add it back
> to 2.6.25 if the problem indeed does go away?

I'm quite sure my patch won't cause any problems, but if Greg
wants to be 100% sure there won't be any regressions introduced
in -stable, reverting the said commit should be the right thing.