Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:4549 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754347AbXEFCdR (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 May 2007 22:33:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:00:51 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Michael Buesch Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Gary Zambrano , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, ralf@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Merging SSB upstream Message-ID: <20070506020051.GA30917@tuxdriver.com> References: <200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200705060303.17594.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 03:03:17AM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > So, now that mac80211 is merged upstream, I think it's > time to merge SSB and the b44-ssb port upstream. > Note that bcm43xx-mac80211 is _not_ ready for upstream, yet. ACK, unfortunately. > What do you think? I'd like to merge ssb as-is, although > the embedded-device parts are not quite finished, yet. > But they don't interfere with the non-embedded parts used > by b44 and the bcm43xx PCI cards. How much testing have you (and others) done w/ b44? I had to remove the b44 ssb changes from fedora because a) users reported problems; and b) I was more worried about wireless than b44+ssb. (sorry!) So, has anyone been using b44 in -mm? > So we _could_ remove the ssb-mips code, but I don't like to > do that for better maintainability. It doesn't hurt anyone IMO. I guess I don't see a problem w/ merging the mips part, as long as the b44 part has been thoroughly tested. I wonder if Ralf has an opinion? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com