> I'm not sure what you mean. But if you are saying that we should move > ath10k_hw_params_list entirely to firmware then that is a huge task as > we would need to make changes in every firmware branch, and there are so > many different branches that I have lost count. And due to backwards > compatibility we still need to have ath10k_hw_params_list in ath10k for > few years. > Apologies for late reply on this thread. Yes you got me right( to move ath10k_hw_params_list entirely to firmware ). I wanted to trigger an idea and know what other people's views are, or atleast what are the challenges. As you said the task is much bigger with so many firmware branches. As long as you feel it is scalable for coming years, we should be good. As far as the patch is concerned, it LGTM. Reviewed-by: Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks Abhishek
