Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Add DFU driver for Atheros Bluetooth chipset AR3011

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@atheros.com>]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:27:48PM -0800, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Vikram Kandukuri <vikram.kandukuri@atheros.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alicke Xu <sxu@atheros.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Linus, this was merged into linux-next already. The driver is small enough,
> > it just uploads firmware, I figured it would likely be welcomed into 2.6.33-rc5.
> > The patch is the same as it went into linux-next. The firmware is already
> > merged as part of the linux-firmware git tree.
> 
> what is going on here? Overstepping myself and also Dave for merging a
> new driver at this point of time in the development cycle.

I poked you on January 14 about whether or not we can push ath3k into
the 2.6.33 series since it was merged as part of linux-next [1]. I didn't
get a reply to that so I figured I'd try this instead.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/4202/match=ath3k

> The driver is small and self-contained, I agree on that. But remember
> the reason why it was not part of 2.6.33-rc1. You guys actually screwed
> up the submission. And I didn't get any fixes for 1.5 month.

Yeah that first set of patches sucked ass, even the later ones due to the
space crap, I agree completely, our bluetooth team needed to get familiarzed
with the upstream patch process and requirements.

> Now you are pushing it like this?

Well like I said I poked you about it on January, and got no reply. So yes.
I see no point to penalize users for not merging a driver into the 2.6.33
series if its already in linux-next, its so small, and the point of issue
was the original submission from a team completely new to the process.

So you justify not merging the driver into 2.6.33 because the team submitting
it did a terrible job on their first try submitting upstream?

> Dave, I have no objection to merging this. So if you are happy in taking
> in it this late, I include it in the round of fixes that I am putting
> together.

I'll clarify I am not trying to overstep on anyone, but if I get no replies
I will try to push through alternate routes.

Thanks,

  Luis