Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:36:30PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: >> + linux-msm >> >> Hi Govind, Kalle, >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 02:56:31PM +0530, Govind Singh wrote: >> > Add QMI client handshakes for Q6 integrated WLAN connectivity subsystem. >> > This module is responsible for communicating WLAN control messages to FW >> > over QMI interface. This patch series enables the qmi handshakes required for >> > WCN3990 chipset. >> [...] >> >> What's the status of this patchset? It has seen various stages of >> review, and except for the fact that Govind seems to have dropped >> various Reviewed-by/Acked-by tags (which Rob noticed), I don't see any >> relevant feedback that should be blocking it. >> >> I previously had concerns about the firmware boot sequence -- that it >> required a Qualcomm-specific TFTP service over QRTR, which had no open >> source implementations. There is now a published daemon that worked for >> me [1], as well as firmware releases that loaded modem and Wifi firmware >> together, such that this TFTP service is not needed at all. So my >> concerns there are no longer blocking. >> >> And I think Rob already reviewed the relevant DT bindings (but again, >> Govind missed collecting that tag for this series). >> >> So the only outstanding request I see is to collect the appropriate >> tags. Should Govind resend the whole series just for that? >> >> FWIW, I've been using this series for a while now, and I reviewed >> earlier versions. I can provide this for the whole series: >> >> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hello Kalle, > > I see that this patch series has been added to your master-pending branch. Yes, I'm very close to applying these patches now. > It seems to be lacking Brians Reviewed-by tags (from above). Added in the pending branch. > The diff between v4 and v5 is just: > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c > @@ -1010,10 +1010,10 @@ int ath10k_qmi_deinit(struct ath10k *ar) > struct ath10k_snoc *ar_snoc = ath10k_snoc_priv(ar); > struct ath10k_qmi *qmi = ar_snoc->qmi; > > + qmi_handle_release(&qmi->qmi_hdl); > cancel_work_sync(&qmi->event_work); > destroy_workqueue(qmi->event_wq); > - qmi_handle_release(&qmi->qmi_hdl); > - qmi = NULL; > + ar_snoc->qmi = NULL; > > return 0; > } > > I've given my Acked-by on v4: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10540111/ > The change between v4 and v5 does not warrant the removal of those tags, > so please re-add them. Added these as well. > Rob has given his Reviewed-by on the dt-binding on v4: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10540115/ > The dt-binding hasn't changed between v4 and v5, so please re-add it. And this also. Please check that everything is ok in the pending branch I just pushed: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/log/?h=pending > I also noted that kbuild test robot complain about this series on x86: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2018-October/012268.html > Are test errors still valid? These errors are because of my mistakes in the conflict resolutions I did yesterday. They should be fixed now. > My patch series that makes QMI_HELPERS selectable for compile test > (e.g. x86), is queued up for 4.20~5.0: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/agross/linux.git/log/?h=qcom-drivers-for-4.20 > > Does this patch series make the errors go away, or are they unrelated? Yeah, the errors reported by kbuild bot were unrelated. BTW, I can already use COMPILE_TEST to for compiling snoc.c on x86. I do get some warnings about QMI_HELPERS which I guess your patches fix once they land my tree. Thanks for all the help! -- Kalle Valo
