Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:39456 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754474AbcK1HWA (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 02:22:00 -0500 From: Kalle Valo To: Prameela Rani Garnepudi Cc: Prameela Rani Garnepudi , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, johannes.berg@intel.com, hofrat@osadl.org, xypron.glpk@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rsi: Device configuration bootup parameters updated References: <1479125750-2598-1-git-send-email-prameela.j04cs@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:21:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Prameela Rani Garnepudi's message of "Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:13:43 +0530") Message-ID: <87h96s83xr.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20161128_082236_341492_A8DABC61) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Prameela Rani Garnepudi writes: > On 11/14/2016 05:45 PM, Prameela Rani Garnepudi wrote: >> Switch clock info values are changed in the firmware for both 20MHZ >> and 40MHZ modes. Hence these values which are configured through boot >> parameters request frame are updated. Also three other power save >> related parameters are added to boot up parameters. >> >> Signed-off-by: Prameela Rani Garnepudi (Removed over hundred lines of unnecessary quotes, please edit your quotes.) > Can you please tell me, what modifications need to be done for this > patch. I already modified the code as per your previous suggestions. Like always, please check the patchwork before sending any emails. The patch in question is here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9427401/ It's in state "Changes Requested" which means that one of patches in the patchset should have some comments. After looking at the other patches I see my comment in patch 2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9427419/ "Based on Documentation/kernel-documentation.rst this doesn't look to be valid kernel-doc format. But AFAICS you got the format correct in patch 3. Also this function uses negative error codes (as preferred), it's not just -1 on failure. You should fix that in the comment (similar problems also elsewhere in this patchset)." -- Kalle Valo