Hi,
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019, Keyon Jie wrote:
Well, to me it is flavor choice, Ranjani suggested to illustrate the use case where the FW will use this host_period_bytes, and I agreed this will help people to understand why we need this change.
hmm, ok. So maybe add "Allows FW to use 'host_period_bytes' field for its original purpose" to my proposed wording..?
This is not helpful -- we know this _is_ a minor ABI change and needs to be aligned with FW.
It is minor change, but the FW change is still required, otherwise, we will get extra position update IPCs which may confuse the driver, please
[...]
Ack, but we know this already so best to put the accurate description in the commit message. The "might require FW change" is a bit scary statement in a patch touching ABI structs. ;)