Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:53909 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752681Ab2KSRhD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:37:03 -0500 Message-ID: <1353346581.10872.117.camel@cumari.coelho.fi> (sfid-20121119_183706_681902_1BD8A83A) Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] wlcore: add chanctx implementation From: Luciano Coelho To: Eliad Peller CC: Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 19:36:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1353343170-26516-1-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <1353343170-26516-9-git-send-email-eliad@wizery.com> <1353344601.18299.31.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 19:16 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Johannes Berg > wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 18:39 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > >> Add some basic chanctx implementation. > > > > This patch will leave the driver in a broken state, and in fact probably > > crashing trying to use hw.conf.channel. > > > you are right. i'm taking care of these in the following patches. > i preferred splitting the patches for clarity instead of squashing > them all into one big patch (removing hw.conf.channel references > before implementing chanctx will break the driver as well). > i guess i can squash them in this case, but i'm not sure it will > really help, as other intermediate patches in this patchset might > still break some functionality of the driver. > > i don't mind either way. whatever Luca will prefer :) > (maybe keeping it that way for review, and only squashing them on apply?) I prefer if we can do it so that the driver is not broken, to make it easier to bisect. But I also agree that for review, it's better to have split up patches. So, your suggestion sounds good to me. Maybe you could send a final squashed patchset when they're reviewed and ready to be applied? -- Luca.