lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Add DFU driver for Atheros Bluetooth chipset AR3011
    On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:27:48PM -0800, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
    > Hi Luis,
    >
    > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Kandukuri <vikram.kandukuri@atheros.com>
    > > Signed-off-by: Alicke Xu <sxu@atheros.com>
    > > Reviewed-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
    > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
    > > ---
    > >
    > > Linus, this was merged into linux-next already. The driver is small enough,
    > > it just uploads firmware, I figured it would likely be welcomed into 2.6.33-rc5.
    > > The patch is the same as it went into linux-next. The firmware is already
    > > merged as part of the linux-firmware git tree.
    >
    > what is going on here? Overstepping myself and also Dave for merging a
    > new driver at this point of time in the development cycle.

    I poked you on January 14 about whether or not we can push ath3k into
    the 2.6.33 series since it was merged as part of linux-next [1]. I didn't
    get a reply to that so I figured I'd try this instead.

    [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.bluez.kernel/4202/match=ath3k

    > The driver is small and self-contained, I agree on that. But remember
    > the reason why it was not part of 2.6.33-rc1. You guys actually screwed
    > up the submission. And I didn't get any fixes for 1.5 month.

    Yeah that first set of patches sucked ass, even the later ones due to the
    space crap, I agree completely, our bluetooth team needed to get familiarzed
    with the upstream patch process and requirements.

    > Now you are pushing it like this?

    Well like I said I poked you about it on January, and got no reply. So yes.
    I see no point to penalize users for not merging a driver into the 2.6.33
    series if its already in linux-next, its so small, and the point of issue
    was the original submission from a team completely new to the process.

    So you justify not merging the driver into 2.6.33 because the team submitting
    it did a terrible job on their first try submitting upstream?

    > Dave, I have no objection to merging this. So if you are happy in taking
    > in it this late, I include it in the round of fixes that I am putting
    > together.

    I'll clarify I am not trying to overstep on anyone, but if I get no replies
    I will try to push through alternate routes.

    Thanks,

    Luis


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-20 22:11    [W:0.032 / U:29.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site