Subject: Re: ath9k gpio request

From: Sudip Mukherjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 23:10:25 +0530

On Saturday 04 June 2016 08:07 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (Fixing top posting)
>
> "Pan, Miaoqing" <[email-masked]> 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 <[email-masked]>
>>
>> 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 <[email-masked]>

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

Regards
Sudip