Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:35310 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbaIJLgy (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <541037D2.7060007@gmail.com> (sfid-20140910_133658_893010_0D895D82) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:36:50 +0200 From: Jiri Slaby MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergey Ryazanov , "John W. Linville" CC: Paul Bolle , Nick Kossifidis , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Oleksij Rempel , Richard Weinberger , Jonathan Bither , Hauke Mehrtens , ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, open@hauke-m.de, "list@hauke-m.de:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , "antonynpavlov@gmail.com" , OpenWrt Development List , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "list@hauke-m.de:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/28] Remove ATHEROS_AR231X References: <20140213201421.GJ22203@tuxdriver.com> <1397581703.8212.5.camel@x220> <1403087119.1984.93.camel@x220> <1403091974.1984.102.camel@x220> <1409911856.7832.9.camel@x220> <1409916824.7832.20.camel@x220> <20140909182734.GJ29412@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/10/2014, 12:33 PM, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: > 2014-09-09 22:27 GMT+04:00, John W. Linville : >> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:02:10PM +0400, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >>> 2014-09-05 15:33 GMT+04:00 Paul Bolle : >>>> Hi Sergey, >>>> >>>> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 15:12 +0400, Sergey Ryazanov wrote: >>>>> 2014-09-05 14:10 GMT+04:00, Paul Bolle : >>>>>> On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 13:46 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: >>>>>>> Having this conversation every rc1 is getting a bit silly. Could >>>>>>> Jiri >>>>>>> e.a. perhaps set some specific deadline for ATHEROS_AR231X to be >>>>>>> submitted? >>>>>> >>>>>> I waited until rc3. Have you seen any activity on this front? If >>>>>> not, >>>>>> should I resend the patch that removes the code in mainline that >>>>>> depends >>>>>> on ATHEROS_AR231X (ie, AHB bus support)? >>>>>> >>>>> Recent activity always could be found in [1]. Now I finish another one >>>>> round of cleanups and have a plan to fix several things (you can >>>>> always find something that you really want to improve). But if you >>>>> insist I could immediately switch to "send upstream" mode. And seems >>>>> that this would be better approach. >>>>> >>>>> 1. https://dev.openwrt.org/log/trunk/target/linux/atheros >>>> >>>> And where can the related PULL requests or patch submissions be found? >>>> >>> I have not sent patches yet, since I thought that it would be easier >>> to cleanup them in openwrt tree and then send them upstream. >> >> That excuse has worn a bit thin. Perhaps Paul should repost his >> removal and you can add a revert to the start of your patch series? >> > As for me, I do not like such flapping Agreed in case what you have is in a good enough shape. You (and also others) can still clean up the code in upstream too. So, if it is mergeable, send it for upstream inclusion now, otherwise I am all for John to apply the Paul's patch. The unused code has been a way too long in the tree now. thanks, -- js