Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.242]:33959 "EHLO na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752937Ab2A3Nzh (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:55:37 -0500 Received: by mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com with SMTP id l5so2585543lah.31 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:55:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] wl12xx: update fw api From: Luciano Coelho To: Eliad Peller Cc: Kalle Valo , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1327924857-1250-1-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <87fwexco94.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:55:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1327931733.3626.72.camel@cumari> (sfid-20120130_145541_786382_BF40636B) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 15:52 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Eliad Peller writes: > > > >> The fw api was changed in the latest FWs (6.3.5.0.95 for wl127x > >> and 7.3.5.0.95 for wl128x). > >> > >> Along with some small adjustments, the main changes > >> inroduced by this patheset are configuring the > >> templates per-role, and moving to IEEE80211_HW_SUPPORTS_DYNAMIC_PS > >> mode. > > > > I didn't look so carefully, but doesn't this break bisect? I mean if you > > change the firmware api in small patches wl12xx can't work properly > > until all patches are applied, right? > > > > I would say that a huge patch doing all the necessary changes in one go > > is better, even it's ugly. > > > yes. it will break bisect (although it shouldn't break compilations). > i guess it's a matter of taste, but i think keeping the patches > manageable is more important than being able to bisect. I tend to agree with Eliad. If we do all in one go, git blame will be horrible. But it's a good point and I'm not fully convinced what is the best way to go. :\ -- Cheers, Luca.