Hi Larry,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:54:01PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 09:25 AM, Forest Bond wrote:
> >From: Forest Bond<forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >The previous definitions included both {B,C,D,E}_CUT_VERSION and
> >CHIP_92D_{C,D}_CUT with conflicting values for the C and D cut versions,
> >and literal hex values were used in the IS_92D_{C,D,E}_CUT macros. So
> >we clean all this up and in doing so enable cut-specific code paths for
> >cuts C and D, which would not have been executed because the
> >CHIP_92D_{C,D}_CUT constants were wrong and the cut version was thus
> >recorded incorrectly.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Forest Bond<forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch does not apply to the wireless-testing tree. That is the
> one you are supposed to use.
>
> Patch #2 also fails to apply. In addition, your mailer mangled a line.
Sorry for the trouble. I'll resend a little later this afternoon.
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
http://www.rapidrollout.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
