Hi Stanislav, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:59, Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10 February 2012 03:46, Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:26 +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: >>> Hi Stanislav, >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:23, Stanislav Yakovlev >>> <stas.yakovlev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > It's just a duplicate of ipw2100_bg_rates[]. >>> >>> Looks sensible to me. >> >> Except that the 2100 is a B-only device; it doesn't do G at all. So >> wouldn't it make sense to get rid of ipw2100_rates_bg[] instead? > > It looks like we all agree that one of them should be removed. I did > not see an easy way to remove ipw2100_rates_bg[]. Maybe it makes more > sense to rename it to ipw2100_rates_b[]? I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, but it can't hurt. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
