Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:56549 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643AbaLXRhF (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:37:05 -0500 From: Kalle Valo To: Arend van Spriel Cc: linux-wireless , Samuel Ortiz , "Rob Herring" , John Stultz Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/10] brcmfmac: Add support for bcm43340/1 wireless chipsets References: <1419357863-2018-1-git-send-email-arend@broadcom.com> <5499BDE9.7020807@broadcom.com> Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:36:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5499BDE9.7020807@broadcom.com> (Arend van Spriel's message of "Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:09:29 +0100") Message-ID: <87mw6d6jb8.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20141224_183724_368124_58B87C75) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Arend van Spriel writes: > On 12/23/14 19:04, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> This patch adds support for the bcm43340 and bcm43341 wireless >> chipsets. These two chipsets are identical from wireless parts >> perspective. As such they use the same firmware image. > > Kalle, > > Just curious. Would this patch have ended up on [1] when I would have > filled In-Reply-to: properly during git send-email? If so I can add > that to our internal process description. Not sure, I'm not very familiar with patchwork yet. I saw some documentation that it's possible to update the patch with pwclient, but I haven't seen anything about doing it via email. IMHO it's just best to resend the whole series even if just one patch needs changes. Anything else would be just confusing and error prone. -- Kalle Valo