From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Merging SSB upstream Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20070506020051.GA30917@tuxdriver.com> References: <200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Gary Zambrano , linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, bcm43xx-dev-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w@public.gmane.org, ralf-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org To: Michael Buesch Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705060303.17594.mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 03:03:17AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > So, now that mac80211 is merged upstream, I think it's > time to merge SSB and the b44-ssb port upstream. > Note that bcm43xx-mac80211 is _not_ ready for upstream, yet. ACK, unfortunately. > What do you think? I'd like to merge ssb as-is, although > the embedded-device parts are not quite finished, yet. > But they don't interfere with the non-embedded parts used > by b44 and the bcm43xx PCI cards. How much testing have you (and others) done w/ b44? I had to remove the b44 ssb changes from fedora because a) users reported problems; and b) I was more worried about wireless than b44+ssb. (sorry!) So, has anyone been using b44 in -mm? > So we _could_ remove the ssb-mips code, but I don't like to > do that for better maintainability. It doesn't hurt anyone IMO. I guess I don't see a problem w/ merging the mips part, as long as the b44 part has been thoroughly tested. I wonder if Ralf has an opinion? John -- John W. Linville linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org