From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12BAB3BA8E for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:28:21 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1513261700; bh=UNe7Io7C3iSyXrihlaUnYjeuqb+L4NlFaP8MZvTf+2Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gF+2a/w6yYrPTyCh5HoRpHn/vXDoHJ34sfFXWTGBFADCNV2zAaJdkTEs6VS00EnkG ns4DM/RQD+fSYMAZ/ZnHFOqJiqs/g4ZL8npIum15IBZhQFjQlBVcKry+H8ZgY2vSYI Wvhn3u/OkLu/Ba6zp48ECiazizZ/LyQyRebVJAW0YWcpiyJMoCMxTPp/LdDcnD5Q4d 4FY4cdcihwrBFBf8A+JOmXePP1frl38rlKzE1b2mnAzbW/GhYWxdOUqHlDBpRBNHhp tMLvdbZH2par+AzgEgJYP3NyVAY5PkPd/SzBMvgUvRxgpOJV3FGIVWXmhVk2GC5aaY GH/+iyyzNGThQ== To: Louie Lu Cc: Make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: References: <87d13kxfm9.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:28:18 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <876099qt8d.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] How to efficient test ath10k driver changed on LEDE platform? X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:28:22 -0000 Louie Lu writes: >>> Also, sometimes apply patch into LEDE may cause error when compiling >>> ath10k driver, >>> is there any way to specify which version of ath10k that LEDE to >>> build? >> >> LEDE backports the entire WiFi stack. So it's way newer than the rest of >> the kernel; think you can see the date it was backported in the version >> number in the Makefile. > > So it is not easy to replace ath10k in LEDE to a spicific version, > right? Not really, no. You can include specific patches, of course. But LEDE (or I guess we should go back to saying OpenWrt now) also applies a bunch of other patches, so there's not a single 1-to-1 correspondence to an upstream "version" (whatever that means). -Toke