Re: [PATCH RFC] staging: r8188eu: Use usb_control_msg_recv/send() in usbctrl_vendorreq()

["Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>]

On Monday, August 23, 2021 1:05:17 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/23/21 1:47 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I think, we can pass REALTEK_USB_VENQT_{READ,WRITE} directly as 
> >> requesttype argument and get rid of u8 reqtype. + we can define these 
> >> macros:
> >> 
> >> #define
> >> usbctrl_vendor_read(...)   usbctrl_vendorreq(...,REALTEK_USB_VENQT_READ)
> >> 
> >> #define
> >> usbctrl_vendor_write()    usbctrl_vendorreq(...,REALTEK_USB_VENQT_WRITE)
> >> 
> >> This will make code more nice, IMO  :)
> > 
> > Dear Pavel,
> > 
> > I agree in full: nicer and cleaner :)
> > 
> > I'll do that, but please notice that I will also need to change the code of the three
> > usb_read*() for calling usbctrl_vendor_read(). Furthermore, "else res = 0;" becomes
> > unnecessary. Please take these changes into account when you'll send them again
> > as "regular" patches.

I have reconsidered the tip above and, while I appreciate your suggestion, I think it's 
not so necessary to use the macros only to get rid of "u8 reqtype".  I finally got rid of 
that variable by passing the request types explicitly to usb_control_msg_recv/send().

> It depends on which patch will go in first.
> 
> There are a lot of upcoming clean ups, so I am waiting for merging my 
> series with random clean ups :) A lot of fun...

A lot of fun... Sure? :)
 
> I biggest hope is that my series will go in before camel-case clean ups, 
> because rewriting this for the 3rd time will kill my mind...

 In this case, I wouldn't want to be in your place :)
> 
> With regards,
> Pavel Skripkin

Thanks again very much for your review,

Fabio