Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:9173 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754785Ab0JFXcu (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:32:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] iwlagn: define 130 series of WiFi/BT combo devices From: "Guy, Wey-Yi" To: Julian Calaby Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: References: <1286378593-7509-1-git-send-email-wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com> <1286378593-7509-7-git-send-email-wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:32:02 -0700 Message-Id: <1286407922.12594.27.camel@wwguy-ubuntu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Julian, On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:28 -0700, Julian Calaby wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 02:23, Wey-Yi Guy wrote: > > add new structures and defines need to identify 130 devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wey-Yi Guy > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.c | 10 +++++++ > > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn.h | 2 + > > 3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c > > index 5866ad8..43ec898 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c > > @@ -75,6 +77,9 @@ > > #define _IWL6000G2B_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) IWL6000G2B_FW_PRE #api ".ucode" > > #define IWL6000G2B_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) _IWL6000G2B_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) > > > > +#define IWL130_FW_PRE "iwlwifi-130-" > > +#define _IWL100_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) IWL130_FW_PRE #api ".ucode" > > +#define IWL100_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) _IWL130_MODULE_FIRMWARE(api) > > I haven't looked at the rest of the file, but is this correct: you're > defining IWL100_MODULE_FIRMWARE using the IWL1*3*0 definitions, which > don't seem to be defined. > > (I note that these definitions aren't used, but still.....) > Good catch, you are correct. I will push another patch to fix it. Thanks Wey