2023-09-27 07:36:31

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China and Thailand

Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]> writes:

> Recently regulations of China and Thailand are changed, and these chips
> have gotten new certifications, so apply new TX power tables.
>
> Zong-Zhe Yang (4):
> wifi: rtw89: regd: configure Thailand in regulation type
> wifi: rtw89: 8852c: update TX power tables to R67
> wifi: rtw89: 8852b: update TX power tables to R35
> wifi: rtw89: 8851b: update TX power tables to R34

I don't see patch 2 in patchwork but I did receive it to my
[email protected] adddress, maybe it was too big for the list?

But I can also apply that manually so no need to split that patch.

--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches


2023-09-27 07:51:20

by Ping-Ke Shih

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China and Thailand



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:32 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kevin Yang <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China and Thailand
>
> Ping-Ke Shih <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Recently regulations of China and Thailand are changed, and these chips
> > have gotten new certifications, so apply new TX power tables.
> >
> > Zong-Zhe Yang (4):
> > wifi: rtw89: regd: configure Thailand in regulation type
> > wifi: rtw89: 8852c: update TX power tables to R67
> > wifi: rtw89: 8852b: update TX power tables to R35
> > wifi: rtw89: 8851b: update TX power tables to R34
>
> I don't see patch 2 in patchwork but I did receive it to my
> [email protected] adddress, maybe it was too big for the list?

Yes, I think so.

I noted that patch 2 was received late from [email protected], so
I checked the size and found that was too big. I was trying to split the patch,
but minutes later I received it.

I think I should add a rule to my local script to check if patch size is larger
than 500k to prevent this again.

>
> But I can also apply that manually so no need to split that patch.
>

Thank you.

Ping-Ke