"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:44:41PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: >> Thanks for all your effort in resolving this issue. >> >> I think Valentin's concern is valid though. The sleep/wakeup paradigm >> in this patch-set is slightly unusual. >> >> So what I've done is taken your latest patch, and incorporated >> Valentin's suggestions on top of it. I don't think there is an >> issue with other drivers as neither approach really changes them. > > Thanks so much for taking charge of this patch. I really, really > appreciate it. I'm also glad that we now have a working implementation > of Valentin's suggestion. > > Just two small notes: > - I had a hard time testing everything because I don't actually have an > ath9k, so I wound up playing with variations on > https://xn--4db.cc/vnRj8zQw/diff in case that helps. I assume you've > got your own way of testing things, but in case not, maybe that diff > is useful. > - I'll mark this patch as "other tree" in the wireless tree's patchwork > now that you're on board so Kalle doesn't have to deal with it. Please don't touch linux-wireless patchwork project, if other people modify it we don't know what's happening. I prefer that I handle the patches myself in patchwork as that way I'm best up-to-date. But just so that I understand correctly, after Herbert's patch no ath9k changes is needed anymore? That sounds great. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
