"Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hello, > > On 04/10/2016 17:46:44 CEST, Kalle Valo wrote: >> "Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> If generic entries are positioned above specific ones, then the >>> former will be matched first and used instead of the latter. >>> >>> Cc: <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Vittorio Gambaletta <linuxbugs@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Why? What kind of bug you are fixing? You are not really describing the >> problem you are trying fix. > > The active_high LED of my Wistron DNMA-92 is still being recognized as > active_low on 4.7.6 mainline. This kind of information is important, always add that to the commit log so that we don't need to guess. > When I was preparing my former patch to fix that, I initially added the > PCI_DEVICE_SUB section for 0x0029/0x2096 above the PCI_VDEVICE section > for 0x0029; but then I moved the former below the latter after seeing > how 0x002A sections were sorted in the file. > > I must have somehow messed up with testing, because I tested the final > version of that patch before sending it, and it was apparently working; > but now it is not working on 4.7.6 mainline. > > With this patch, 0x0029/0x2096 has finally got active_high LED on > 4.7.6. I'm confused, are you now saying that this patch doesn't work? > So, after seeing that the rest of the file is sorted this way (generic > section after the specific ones), I concluded that the 0x002A sorting > was wrong in the first place, and so is 0x0029. Then I sent this patch > to fix this. I can't see how changing the order in ath_pci_id_table[] would make any difference in functionality, but I might be missing something. >> And your email headers look weird: >> >> To: <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: <ath9k-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:00:56 +0200 >> >> What software are you using to send this? Only one CC header is valid >> according to the spec (thanks to Luca for checking) even though mailers >> seem to handle multiple CC headers. But for example my patchwork script >> fails with this and uses only the first CC header. > > Sorry about this, I used a custom mailer to send the patch since I was > having problems with git-send-email... Ok, that explains it. -- Kalle Valo
