On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:08:47PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Can you revert this patch? Otherwise the followup will just do the same. > > I can revert the patch. But IMHO the check isn't that bad, and even > cfg80211 can be buggy sometimes ;) > Well it's probably better not to cover any cfg80211 bugs up in the driver anyway. > >> And ath6kl even uses different define pattern_max_len: > >> > >> wiphy->wowlan.pattern_max_len = WOW_PATTERN_SIZE; > >> > >> But the value is still same: > >> > >> #define WOW_PATTERN_SIZE 64 > >> #define WOW_MASK_SIZE 64 > >> > >> Thomas, can you please check this? Do we really need two different > >> defines? And which one is the correct one here? > > > > No AFAICT there is no reason to have two different defines. I can submit > > a small patch consolidating these, but it would remove the above hunk > > anyway so I need to know whether you'll revert or not. > > Thanks. I'll revert the patch so please prepare your patch without the > check. OK. Thomas -- 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
