Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:08:14 -0800 | | From | "Luis R. Rodriguez" <> | | Subject | Re: [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
|  |