Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:43859 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751353Ab2EZRRd (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 May 2012 13:17:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 12:17:28 -0500 From: Seth Forshee To: Arend van Spriel Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] brcm80211: smac: rework regulatory support Message-ID: <20120526171728.GA11759@ubuntu-mba> (sfid-20120526_191736_828688_9DC60362) References: <1334607462-5387-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <4FC00848.9060901@broadcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4FC00848.9060901@broadcom.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:31:36AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 04/16/2012 10:17 PM, Seth Forshee wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > You missed an 'e' ;-) Oops! My apologies :) > > Here's the latest update to the brcmsmac regulatory rework that I've > > been working on. I've broken it up into a series of smaller patches, > > cleaned things up, and finished what changes I can with the information > > available to me. > > It took a while. There were some discussions and we agreed that your > changes establish a better integration with the regulatory framework. > There are some concerns about the content of the crda database, but that > is another thing outside the scope of your patches. Great! > > I've attempted to maintain the same high-level behavior that the > > brcmsmac internal regulatory support currently enforces. > > Appreciated. We can add/change in subsequent patches. I collected review > comments internally including mine. I will provide them in response to > each individual patch. I've looked over the comments, and I agree with most of them. I'll respond to each individually. > General comment: you should run 'checkpatch.pl --strict' script over the > patches. I came across several issues that will probably be flagged by it. Yeah, I didn't bother with it for the RFC patches since I just wanted to ensure that I had buy-in from you guys on the changes in general. I've already got a few things cleaned up locally, and I'll run everything through checkpatch before I send them again. Thanks, Seth