Re: ath9k gpio request

[Sudip Mukherjee]

On Saturday 04 June 2016 08:07 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (Fixing top posting)
>
> "Pan, Miaoqing" <miaoqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/reg.h
> > > > @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ enum {
> > > >    #define AR9300_NUM_GPIO                          16
> > > >    #define AR9330_NUM_GPIO                                 16
> > > >    #define AR9340_NUM_GPIO                                 23
> > > > -#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO                                 10
> > > > -#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO                                 12
> > > > +#define AR9462_NUM_GPIO                                 14
> > > > +#define AR9485_NUM_GPIO                                 11
> > > >    #define AR9531_NUM_GPIO                                 18
> > > >    #define AR9550_NUM_GPIO                                 24
> > > >    #define AR9561_NUM_GPIO                                 23
> > > > @@ -1139,8 +1139,8 @@ enum {
> > > >    #define AR9300_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000F4FF
> > > >    #define AR9330_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000F4FF
> > > >    #define AR9340_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
> > > > -#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK                        0x000003FF
> > > > -#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK                        0x00000FFF
> > > > +#define AR9462_GPIO_MASK                        0x00003FFF
> > > > +#define AR9485_GPIO_MASK                        0x000007FF
> > > >    #define AR9531_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
> > > >    #define AR9550_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
> > > >    #define AR9561_GPIO_MASK                        0x0000000F
> > >
> > > solves the problem.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Done, https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9151847/
>
> But the patch 9151847 is different from what Sudip tested above? Why?
>
> And if you modify something _after_ the reporter has tested the patch
> clearly document what you changed and why. I do not want find hidden
> changes like this, even more so when the patch is going to a 4.7-rc
> release.
>
> Sudip, could you also test patch 9151847, please? You can download the
> patch from the patchwork link above.

This is also ok. Please add my
Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

and maybe a Reported-by tag is also appropriate in this case.


Regards
Sudip