Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2017-02-08 10:54, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> On 2-2-2017 22:33, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This will allow getting struct device reference from the passed >>> brcmf_pub for the needs of dev_err. More detailed messages are really >>> important for home routers which frequently have 2 (or even 3) >>> wireless >>> cards supported by brcmfmac. >>> >>> Note that all calls are yet to be updated as for now brcmf_err macro >>> always passes NULL. This will be handled in following patch to make >>> this >>> change easier to review. >> >> I prefer brcmf_err() to have struct device reference directly >> instead of >> using brcmf_pub. That would remove the need for patches 5 till 7 as bus >> specific code already has struct device. So I have acked the first >> three >> patches, but would like to revise 8 and 9. >> >> Kalle, >> >> I acked the first three patches. Can those three still go in for 4.11? > > Sounds OK to me. Kalle, I ack Arend's request if it isn't too late. Ok, I'll try. My plan is to get everything ready for linux-next by tomorrow morning (Finland time), let's see how it goes. Related to this, Rafał are you still deleting the patches from patchwork which should be dropped? I think you are as I can't see patches 4-9 anymore. Now that my patchwork setup is much better (compared to how it was over a year ago) I would actually prefer that you don't do that anymore. The problem is that when you delete the patch from patchwork it completely disappears from patchwork and I can't check the patch or discussion anymore. And I'm so accustomed to use patchwork that only seldom I use email to find the patch. So it would be better to leave the patches as is and let me drop them (=change the state Changes Requested, Rejected or similar), which is trivial with my script. Otherwise I get this unsure feeling of what happened to the patch :) -- Kalle Valo
