Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [2/3] mwifiex: support sysfs initiated device coredump
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
References: <1519210220-22437-3-git-send-email-arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
 <20180312094115.2E1C1606DB@smtp.codeaurora.org>
 <5AA67616.2000602@broadcom.com> <87efkoazow.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <5AA829A1.1090209@broadcom.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:42:25 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87efkoazow.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/13/2018 2:10 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/12/2018 10:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since commit 3c47d19ff4dc ("drivers: base: add coredump driver ops")
>>>> it is possible to initiate a device coredump from user-space. This
>>>> patch adds support for it adding the .coredump() driver callback.
>>>> As there is no longer a need to initiate it through debugfs remove
>>>> that code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
>>>
>>> Based on the discussion I assume this is ok to take to w-d-next. If that's not
>>> the case, please let me know ASAP.
>>
>> It is up to the mwifiex maintainers to decide, I guess. The ABI
>> documentation need to be revised and change the callback to void
>> return type. I am not sure what the best approach is. 1) apply this
>> and fix return type later, or 2) fix return type and resubmit this.
>> What is your opinion?
>
> I guess the callback change will go through Greg's tree? Then I suspect
> it's easier that you submit the callback change to Greg first and wait
> for it to trickle down to wireless-drivers-next (after the next merge
> window) and then I can apply the driver patches. Otherwise there might
> be a conflict between my and Greg's tree.

That was my assessment, but unfortunately Marcel already applied the 
btmrvl patch before I could reply. So how do I move from here? Option 1) 
revert brmrvl and fix callback return type, or 2) apply mwifiex patch 
and fix callback return type later for both drivers.

Regards,
Arend