Return-path: Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:49101 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466Ab0CIGp7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:45:59 -0500 Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3so1246388gyh.19 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:45:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201003091456.37577.br1@einfach.org> References: <20100308025841.7460.69949.stgit@void> <43e72e891003081932h49340b6aia3fb6fd1e60ae8d7@mail.gmail.com> <201003091456.37577.br1@einfach.org> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:45:58 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH v2] ath5k: fix I/Q calibration (for real) From: Bob Copeland To: Bruno Randolf Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Tuesday 09 March 2010 12:32:33 Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Perhaps a little more elaboration on the commit log on the impact and >> how this helps and how much would help. > > ok. to stop the confusion, i'll add cc: stable. :) thanks! FWIW, I tested the patches, and they worked well for my not-very-thorough tests. I think there was a regression in 2.6.32 time-frame that I never pinned down, hopefully this corrects some things. I did not test the 5211 stuff though, that one patch is probably not for stable unless someone can test that. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com