Subject: RE: [PATCH] ath10k: Don't always treat modem stop events as crashes

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:37:37 +0530

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:30 PM
> To: Stephen Boyd <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; linux-arm-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; linux-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Don't always treat modem stop events as
> crashes
> 
> Stephen Boyd <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > Quoting [email-masked] (2021-09-21 22:35:34)
> >> On 9/5/21 4:04 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>
> >> > +static int ath10k_snoc_modem_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >> > +unsigned long
> > [...]
> >>
> >> > +
> >>
> >> > +          return NOTIFY_OK;
> >>
> >> > +}
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for posting the patch. It would be preferable to use a
> >> different flag instead of ATH10K_SNOC_FLAG_UNREGISTERING,
> >>
> >> since we are not unloading the ath10k driver.
> 
> Weird, I don't see pillair's email on patchwork[1] and not in the ath10k
list
> either. Was it sent as HTML or something?

Hi Kalle,
Yes, I replied via the "In-reply-to" from the patchworks[1] link.

Thanks,
Rakesh Pillai

> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-
> wireless/patch/[email-masked]/
> 
> --
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
> 
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingp
> atches