All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5ECEB2.7050903@qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120312201650.GG26059@tux>

Hi Luis,

On Tuesday 13 March 2012 01:46 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>>>> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of
>>>> chipsets are obselete ?
>>> NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally
>>> removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need
>>> to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code.
>>
>> IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK!
>> sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to
>> quickly check with the HAL code.
>
> "HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other
> way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK.
>

we have checks like this

case 1.#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

case 2. #define AR_SREV_9485_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9485))


case 3. #define AR_SREV_9287_13_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion > AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) || \
	 (((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion == AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) && \
	  ((_ah)->hw_version.macRev >= AR_SREV_REVISION_9287_13)))

it made be bit confused and i was just adding some hardware related 
changes, let me do accept i missed to see why the check for AR9280 is 
like that. i just thought of making the changes in sync with the other 
macros, also thats why sent an RFC too

Felix suggested a better solution would be

#define AR_SREV_9280_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

instead of the older one (or) what my patch does

#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

and make corresponding changes in the hardware code.

thanks!


-- 
thanks,
shafi

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <rodrigue@qca.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
	<ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:06:02 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5ECEB2.7050903@qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120312201650.GG26059@tux>

Hi Luis,

On Tuesday 13 March 2012 01:46 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>>>> From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of
>>>> chipsets are obselete ?
>>> NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally
>>> removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need
>>> to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code.
>>
>> IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK!
>> sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to
>> quickly check with the HAL code.
>
> "HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other
> way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK.
>

we have checks like this

case 1.#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

case 2. #define AR_SREV_9485_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9485))


case 3. #define AR_SREV_9287_13_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion > AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) || \
	 (((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion == AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) && \
	  ((_ah)->hw_version.macRev >= AR_SREV_REVISION_9287_13)))

it made be bit confused and i was just adding some hardware related 
changes, let me do accept i missed to see why the check for AR9280 is 
like that. i just thought of making the changes in sync with the other 
macros, also thats why sent an RFC too

Felix suggested a better solution would be

#define AR_SREV_9280_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

instead of the older one (or) what my patch does

#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
	(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))

and make corresponding changes in the hardware code.

thanks!


-- 
thanks,
shafi

  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-13  4:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-12  5:57 [ath9k-devel] [RFC] ath9k_hw: Fix chip revision checks Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  5:57 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Felix Fietkau
2012-03-12  9:02   ` Felix Fietkau
2012-03-12  9:16   ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:16     ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:41     ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:41       ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12 20:16     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-03-12 20:16       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-03-13  4:36       ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan [this message]
2012-03-13  4:36         ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:44 ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan
2012-03-12  9:44   ` Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F5ECEB2.7050903@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --to=mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.