Re: [PATCH 1/3] ath10k: Get rid of superfluous call to pci_disable_msi()

[Kalle Valo]

Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Well, as this series is small I thought it could quickly go thru your
>> tree. But since ipr had conflicts, there is no point routing all patches
>> altogether, so up to you guys. The wil6210 patch is already in your pci/msi
>> branch though.
>
> It's in pci/msi, but that's not in my -next branch yet, so I can
> easily drop it.  Do drivers/net/wireless patches normally follow a
> different path than the other drivers/net patches?  The wil6210 and
> ath10k patches look just like the others in the 34-patch series (bnx2,
> bnx2x, tg3, bna, cxgb3, etc.), so I thought it would make more sense
> to include them there.

ath10k patches normally go through my ath.git tree to Linville and then
to David Miller. To avoid conflicts I would prefer to take ath10k
patches to my tree whenever possible.

-- 
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/