Return-path: Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:34076 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756787Ab2CLUQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:16:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:16:50 -0700 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan CC: Felix Fietkau , "John W. Linville" , , Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks Message-ID: <20120312201650.GG26059@tux> (sfid-20120312_211700_807775_031B96F1) References: <1331531853-5043-1-git-send-email-mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com> <4F5DBB8B.1070000@openwrt.org> <4F5DBED4.4050500@qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <4F5DBED4.4050500@qca.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote: > Hi Felix, > > On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > >On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote: > >>From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan > >> > >>not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of > >>chipsets are obselete ? > >NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally > >removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need > >to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code. > > IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK! > sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to > quickly check with the HAL code. "HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK. Luis