On 5/6/2025 6:10 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On 5/6/25 12:17 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> v2 feedback was not incorporated: >> For starters, can we make the subject a bit more specific, i.e. >> Fix MHI target memory reuse logic >> >> But don't repost for this -- I'll make that change in ath/pending > I'd changed again on the request of another reviewer. Please feel free > to change as you like. I don't have any opinion on it. > >> >> However, does ath12k need the same fix? > Looking at ath12k, there is similar code structure in > ath12k_qmi_alloc_chunk(). By adding some logging, we can confirm if > ath12k requires the fix or not. As a lot of code is similar in both > drivers, ath12k may require the same fix. > > I don't have access to ath12k. So I cannot test on it. Baochen, do you want to propagate the change to ath12k?
