Please do educate us a bit! We were not aware of the requirement that all patches contributions to the cfg/nl have to be for driver that are already up streamed. As for our effort for upstreaming our driver, we should take this out of this context since there are factors driving this that are completely orthogonal to this discussion. Thanks, -Henri -----Original Message----- From: mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Luis R. Rodriguez Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 12:26 AM To: BAHINI, Henri Cc: Chauhan, Rajesh; Johannes Berg; linux-wireless; Malinen, Jouni; Johnson, Jeff; Chang, Leo; Luo, Xun; Thalappil, Sameer; Hussain, Arif Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] cfg80211: add support for frequency interference event On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM, BAHINI, Henri <hbahini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luis- > Can we be a bit professional here and limit the discussion to the patch that we're introducing. > Rajesh does not decide when the driver gets up streamed. Let's be professional. Who the fuck decides to try to introduce APIs for shit for drivers that are not upstream ? > Can we get this discussion outside of the context of this patch? What type of serious effort are you putting into getting your driver upstream? Otherwise it seems to me like a waste of my and other's own time for review. Luis ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
