Hej Kalle,
I was actually about to email you about this.
I have made a few more updates to the sdio code so I think it would be
best if I could submit a new series of patches based on this code (v4).
Then you can tweak it (v5).
It is only minor updates to the HIF layer (added QCA9377 support) and
a setup of some pll registers.
I will get back to you shortly.
btw, should I still mark them as RFC or should it be PATCH this time?
If I go for PATCH, should the version be v4 or should I start from v1?
/Erik
On 2017-02-18 14:40, Valo, Kalle wrote:
Hej,
Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromd...@gmail.com> writes:
This is the third version of the sdio RFC patch series.
The actual sdio code (patch 6) has been subject to a massive overhaul,
mainly as a result of Kalle's review comments.
It no longer has any strong resemblance of the original ath6kl code from
which it was originally based upon.
Previous pathes 6 to 10 have been merged into one single patch.
The previous series had a rework of the "HTC fake service" connect
(ep 0 connect) that introduced a race between the actual endpoint
connect and the HTC ready message. This issue has been addressed,
and the current patches (3 and 4) has been rewritten accordingly.
* overview of patches *
Patches 1 to 4 are more or less identical to the previous RFC, with an
exception for patch 3 that changes the "HTC fake service" connect
(mentioned above).
Patch 5 is a squashed version of previous patches 6 to 10.
Patch 6 is the actual sdio patch
Patches 7 to 8 are new and adds special sdio versions of BMI get
target info and HTC ready.
The new version was built and tested against:
tag: ath-201701121109
Erik Stromdahl (8):
ath10k: htc: made static function public
ath10k: htc: rx trailer lookahead support
ath10k: htc: move htc ctrl ep connect to htc_init
ath10k: htc: refactorization
ath10k: various sdio related definitions
ath10k: sdio support
ath10k: sdio get target info
ath10k: htc: ready_ext msg support
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, haven't found time to look
this in detail during the last few weeks.
This is looking quite good now. I have some nitpicks (build warnings,
maybe reorder some patches etc) still but I think it's faster if I fix
those and send v4 as a proper patch (no RFC anymore), naturally
attributing you as the author. Is that ok for you?
