Messages in this thread |  | | From | Kalle Valo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi() | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:29:04 +0200 |
| |
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote: >> Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> writes: >> >>>> Well, as this series is small I thought it could quickly go thru your >>>> tree. But since ipr had conflicts, there is no point routing all patches >>>> altogether, so up to you guys. The wil6210 patch is already in your pci/msi >>>> branch though. >>> >>> It's in pci/msi, but that's not in my -next branch yet, so I can >>> easily drop it. Do drivers/net/wireless patches normally follow a >>> different path than the other drivers/net patches? The wil6210 and >>> ath10k patches look just like the others in the 34-patch series (bnx2, >>> bnx2x, tg3, bna, cxgb3, etc.), so I thought it would make more sense >>> to include them there. >> >> ath10k patches normally go through my ath.git tree to Linville and then >> to David Miller. To avoid conflicts I would prefer to take ath10k >> patches to my tree whenever possible. > > OK, I won't do anything with ath10k (I haven't applied it anywhere).
I have now taken the ath10k patches to my pending branch, will apply them soon.
-- Kalle Valo
|  |