Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:55843 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752132AbbLNMWj (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:22:39 -0500 Message-ID: <1450095756.3871.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20151214_132246_888400_BF4C9C9B) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] mwifiex fixes From: Johannes Berg To: Amitkumar Karwar , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Cc: Cathy Luo , Nishant Sarmukadam Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:22:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1450095315-19927-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com> (sfid-20151214_131706_754762_207FCAEE) References: <1450095315-19927-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com> (sfid-20151214_131706_754762_207FCAEE) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 04:15 -0800, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > These patches include few fixes for mwifiex and add a > debugfs file for chip reset. > A lot of these "fixes" look like new firmware features to me (e.g. interface limits, sms4 cipher, pattern length). First of all - is that really appropriate as "fixes", what tree are you targeting? And secondly, how are you making sure the user won't have an older firmware version where this will presumably cause crashes? johannes