"Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" <linux-wirel...@vittgam.net> writes:
> On 04/10/2016 17:46:44 CEST, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> "Vittorio Gambaletta (VittGam)" <linux-wirel...@vittgam.net> writes:
>>> If generic entries are positioned above specific ones, then the
>>> former will be matched first and used instead of the latter.
>>> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> Cc: <ath9k-de...@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>> Cc: <ath9k-de...@lists.ath9k.org>
>>> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vittorio Gambaletta <linuxb...@vittgam.net>
>> Why? What kind of bug you are fixing? You are not really describing the
>> problem you are trying fix.
> The active_high LED of my Wistron DNMA-92 is still being recognized as
> active_low on 4.7.6 mainline.
This kind of information is important, always add that to the commit log
so that we don't need to guess.
> When I was preparing my former patch to fix that, I initially added the
> PCI_DEVICE_SUB section for 0x0029/0x2096 above the PCI_VDEVICE section
> for 0x0029; but then I moved the former below the latter after seeing
> how 0x002A sections were sorted in the file.
> I must have somehow messed up with testing, because I tested the final
> version of that patch before sending it, and it was apparently working;
> but now it is not working on 4.7.6 mainline.
> With this patch, 0x0029/0x2096 has finally got active_high LED on
I'm confused, are you now saying that this patch doesn't work?
> So, after seeing that the rest of the file is sorted this way (generic
> section after the specific ones), I concluded that the 0x002A sorting
> was wrong in the first place, and so is 0x0029. Then I sent this patch
> to fix this.
I can't see how changing the order in ath_pci_id_table would make any
difference in functionality, but I might be missing something.
>> And your email headers look weird:
>> To: <kv...@codeaurora.org>
>> Cc: <email@example.com>
>> Cc: <ath9k-de...@qca.qualcomm.com>
>> Cc: <ath9k-de...@venema.h4ckr.net>
>> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:00:56 +0200
>> What software are you using to send this? Only one CC header is valid
>> according to the spec (thanks to Luca for checking) even though mailers
>> seem to handle multiple CC headers. But for example my patchwork script
>> fails with this and uses only the first CC header.
> Sorry about this, I used a custom mailer to send the patch since I was
> having problems with git-send-email...
Ok, that explains it.