Hi Jes, On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hi Jes, >> >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:05 AM, <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Having a version for the newer chips without calling it doesn't do >>> much good..... >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Should this be squashed into the patch that introduces the new op? > > I can start rewriting history, but all that comes out of that is having > to fight patch conflicts rebasing things. > > If there was an actual functional reason for it, sure, but in this case > there isn't. Fair enough, it just looks odd to have fixes like this in a patch series that almost entirely consists of introducing new stuff. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
