Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:52866 "EHLO mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730103AbeIRT7H (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:59:07 -0400 Received: by mail-it0-f65.google.com with SMTP id h3-v6so3460185ita.2 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180907211312.17918-1-lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com> <20180918114356.GB15285@redhat.com> <20180918120234.GD15285@redhat.com> <871s9r2d3g.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <871s9r2d3g.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> From: Sid Hayn Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:26:09 -0400 Message-ID: (sfid-20180918_162652_056910_94DAB095) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mt76x0: run vco calibration for each channel configuration To: Kalle Valo Cc: sgruszka@redhat.com, Lorenzo Bianconi , Felix Fietkau , linux-wireless , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: mt76x0 isn't in 4.18 at all, it's being added in 4.19 isn't it? I'm not sure you can call it a regression, but adding a new driver with a known bug that breaks an entire use case (monitor mode) seems silly when a small and tested fix is available. Pretty please. Thanks, Zero On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:43 AM Kalle Valo wrote: > > Stanislaw Gruszka writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:43:56PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:13:12PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > >> > According to vendor sdk, vco calibration has to be executed > >> > for each channel configuration whereas mcu calibration has to be > >> > performed during channel scanning. This patch fixes the mt76x0 > >> > monitor mode issue since in that configuration vco calibration > >> > was never executed > >> > > >> > Fixes: 10de7a8b4ab9 ("mt76x0: phy files") > >> > Tested-by: Sid Hayn > >> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi > >> > >> Acked-by: Stanislaw Gruszka > > > > For the record this is 4.19 material. > > I really want to minimise conflicts and because of so many mt76 patches > conflicts are likely to happen, so I'm keeping the bar high for mt76 > patches going 4.19. Is this a regression from 4.18? If not, I think this > should go to -next and cc stable. And besides, monitor mode isn't that > critical anyway. > > -- > Kalle Valo