From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Ycgwx-0000vo-9T for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:10:23 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.236] (unknown [50.251.239.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.candelatech.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E7D240A626 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5519BBA5.7080704@candelatech.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:09:57 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Question on ar->max_num_vdevs and WMI ops config. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: ath10k I'm porting forward my changes to the 4.0-rc6 kernel, and I notice something a bit confusing to me. It seems some upstream patch has added ar->max_num_vdevs and some related fields. But, in places like this: static struct sk_buff *ath10k_wmi_op_gen_init(struct ath10k *ar) { struct wmi_init_cmd *cmd; struct sk_buff *buf; struct wmi_resource_config config = {}; u32 len, val; config.num_vdevs = __cpu_to_le32(TARGET_NUM_VDEVS); config.num_peers = __cpu_to_le32(TARGET_NUM_PEERS); config.num_offload_peers = __cpu_to_le32(TARGET_NUM_OFFLOAD_PEERS); We are still using constants instead of ar->max_num_vdevs. Was this done on purpose for some reason? It will make my patches to support CT features a bit cleaner if we use the values stored in ar->max_num_vdevs etc. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k