Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200327075229.29191-1-yhchuang@realtek.com> <20200327075229.29191-2-yhchuang@realtek.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200327075229.29191-2-yhchuang@realtek.com>
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:30:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXP0QMv=P6p-GRd4skhYdReHV=crvRz74HyyMXtSAHrCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] rtw88: add regulatory process strategy for
 different chipset
To:     Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Huang <tehuang@realtek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:52 AM <yhchuang@realtek.com> wrote:
> v3 -> v4
>   * squashed with "rtw88: support dynamic user regulatory setting"
>   * modify the commit log
>
> v4 -> v5
>   * no change
>
> v5 -> v6
>   * remove custom world-wide, use stack world-wide
>   * surface error codes
>
> v6 -> v7
>   * restore custom world-wide
>   * modify commit message to be more clear

If it wasn't clear, v7 looks more like v5. I think I had some of my
own misunderstanding of the regulatory core when
reading/reviewing/testing v5, which resulted in ill-conceived changes
in v6. I think I've gotten my head around this, and this looks fine to
me. But that's not saying much, given how confused I was at times.

Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>