[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#596626: [gsimmons@gsimmons.org: Bug#596626: Please support Linksys WUSB600N v2 WiFi USB stick]

On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:17 +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> Hi,
> >> > As mentioned by Jan, the device contains a RT3572
> >> > chipset.  Its entry
> >> > could moved into the section for known RT35XX devices (i.e.
> >> > "#ifdef
> >> > CONFIG_RT2800USB_RT35XX") as an alternative.
> >> >
> >> > Geoff
> >>
> >> This has already been done: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/ivd/rt2x00.git;a=commitdiff;h=ce2919c9fffe2aa52f9c3e327176d03764dbf9b5
> >
> > That's all very well, but that isn't going to get into a stable release
> > for another 3 months!  Device ID updates that don't require new
> > supporting code should be sent upstream straight away (and cc'd to
> > stable@kernel.org).
> The patch has been send upstream, it has been in wireless-next-2.6.git
> since April 19...
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-next-2.6.git;a=commit;h=ce2919c9fffe2aa52f9c3e327176d03764dbf9b5
> The patch depends on the RT53xx support patch which was also intented
> for 2.6.40.

What is it, RT35XX or RT53XX?!

> > I've cherry-picked this and the other two updates in rt2800usb that
> > aren't in Linus's tree, but that doesn't help the users of other
> > distributions that would benefit from them.
> True, but the normal flow for new features and hardware support is that they
> should be properly merged during the normal merge window. The addition
> of support of RT53xx is not something that should go to stable@kernel.org...

I understand that.


> Patches from rt2x00.git are quite quickly send from rt2x00.git to upstream,
> and patches which are not send upstream directly have a reason for not being
> send at that time (Usually it means that it requires some extra testing).
> Ivo

Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: