Re: [PATCH 00/41] rewritten rt2800 drivers

From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 13:17:56 EST

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 23:55:39 Julian Calaby wrote:
> Bart,
> FWIW, this all looks good to me, except for these comments:
> 1. When you introduce struct rt2800_ops, it may telegraph your
> intentions more clearly if you introduce rt2800lib.h at the same time
> - this also means that we don't have (if only for a single patch)
> duplicate versions of this structure and it's associated code.

The current order is mostly the result of incremental steps leading to
the final conclusions so indeed it can be polished a bit now.

> 2. Patches #26-28 should arguably come before the conversions to use
> the struct rt2800_ops methods.

Done, also the patch adding rt2800lib.h has been moved in front the ones
adding rt2800_ops.

[ I've kept all ACKs in affected patches, I hope people are fine with it. ]

> 3. I don't get the reasoning behind patch #37 (remove useless ifdefs
> from rt2x00leds.h) but I'm going to assume that it's all right.

struct rt2x00_led is referenced in rt2800lib.h so instead of adding more
ifdefs to fix build I removed needless ones.

> 4. Patch #39 should arguably come earlier in the patch set as it's a
> general cleanup.

This was also needed to fix build (for patch #40 IIRC).

I've moved #37 and #39 near the beginning of the patch series (after
"rt2x00: fix rt2x00usb_register_read() comment" patch).

The rt2800 tree has been updated to reflect above changes (rt2800-v2.1
branch is now the current one), if somebody would like to see patches
please ping me (I think that such minor updates don't justify spamming
mailing list w/ 41 patches but that's just me).

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at