Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> writes: > On 18-5-2017 17:47, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Kalle Valo <kv...@codeaurora.org> writes: >> >>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> wrote: >>>> From: Arend van Spriel <ar...@broadcom.com> >>>> >>>> Detect gscan support in firmware by doing pfn_gscan_cfg iovar with >>>> invalid version. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <hante.meule...@broadcom.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesbe...@broadcom.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <franky....@broadcom.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspr...@broadcom.com> >>> >>> Failed to apply: >>> >>> fatal: sha1 information is lacking or useless >>> (drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c). >>> error: could not build fake ancestor >>> Applying: brcmfmac: add support multi-scheduled scan >>> Patch failed at 0001 brcmfmac: add support multi-scheduled scan >>> The copy of the patch that failed is found in: .git/rebase-apply/patch >>> >>> 5 patches set to Changes Requested. >>> >>> 9692541 [V3,5/9] brcmfmac: add firmware feature detection for gscan feature >>> 9692537 [V3,6/9] brcmfmac: move scheduled scan wiphy param setting to pno >>> module >>> 9692543 [V3,7/9] brcmfmac: add support multi-scheduled scan >>> 9692535 [V3,8/9] brcmfmac: add mutex to protect pno requests >>> 9692539 [V3,9/9] brcmfmac: add scheduled scan support for specified BSSIDs >> >> Actually I made a mistake and forgot to manually remove patches 5 and 6 >> from the tree after the conflict (I haven't automated that part yet in >> my script). So these are now applied: >> >> 9fe929aaace6 brcmfmac: add firmware feature detection for gscan feature >> 94ed6ffb7965 brcmfmac: move scheduled scan wiphy param setting to pno module >> >> Please resend patches 7-9 and double check that the tree looks ok :) > > Will do. These patches were in same series as cfg80211 changes and all > based on mac80211-next/master. I already mentioned to you and Johannes > in earlier version of the patch series (posted April 7) that this would > result in a merge conflict, but I can imagine that info got lost after > more than a month.
Ah, I remember now. But yeah, too many emails so I tend to forget so old discussions while looking at patches. -- Kalle Valo
