Hi Larry,
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 01:04:08PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 12:57 PM, Forest Bond wrote:
> >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.
>
> No problem for me. I was able to fix everything but the mangling with wiggle.
I just resent both patches, including the changes you requested to the first
one. Turns out GPG was causing all of the issues above, so I didn't sign the
resent patches.
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
http://www.rapidrollout.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
