On 2017-02-08 15:52, Kalle Valo wrote:
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 :)
Yeah, that was me (marked 4-9 as Changes Requested), sorry ;) I won't be
messing with patches in the future.
