On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 19:16 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Johannes Berg >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 18:39 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: >> >> Add some basic chanctx implementation. >> > >> > This patch will leave the driver in a broken state, and in fact probably >> > crashing trying to use hw.conf.channel. >> > >> you are right. i'm taking care of these in the following patches. >> i preferred splitting the patches for clarity instead of squashing >> them all into one big patch (removing hw.conf.channel references >> before implementing chanctx will break the driver as well). >> i guess i can squash them in this case, but i'm not sure it will >> really help, as other intermediate patches in this patchset might >> still break some functionality of the driver. >> >> i don't mind either way. whatever Luca will prefer :) >> (maybe keeping it that way for review, and only squashing them on apply?) > > I prefer if we can do it so that the driver is not broken, to make it > easier to bisect. But I also agree that for review, it's better to have > split up patches. > > So, your suggestion sounds good to me. Maybe you could send a final > squashed patchset when they're reviewed and ready to be applied? > sure. Eliad. -- 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
