On Saturday 04 June 2016 08:07 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
(Fixing top posting)
"Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
@@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9330_NUM_GPIO 16
#define AR9340_NUM_GPIO 23
-#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 10
-#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 12
+#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO 14
+#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO 11
#define AR9531_NUM_GPIO 18
#define AR9550_NUM_GPIO 24
#define AR9561_NUM_GPIO 23
@@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
#define AR9300_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9330_GPIO_MASK 0x0000F4FF
#define AR9340_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
-#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x000003FF
-#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x00000FFF
+#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK 0x00003FFF
+#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK 0x000007FF
#define AR9531_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9550_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
#define AR9561_GPIO_MASK 0x0000000F
solves the problem.
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/
But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?
And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
release.
Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
patch from the patchwork link above.
This is also ok. Please add my
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
and maybe a Reported-by tag is also appropriate in this case.
Regards
Sudip
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
