From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: "Bera Yüzlü" <b9788213@gmail.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: refactor ODM_SetIQCbyRFpath to reduce duplication
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 12:03:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYBoe8HGZnp5YbQ5@stanley.mountain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aX9UxRK_iYwxhTAm@BERA.localdomain>
On Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 04:27:33PM +0300, Bera Yüzlü wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/HalPhyRf_8723B.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/HalPhyRf_8723B.c
> index 34692cca33f5..bd535f774852 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/HalPhyRf_8723B.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/HalPhyRf_8723B.c
> @@ -1074,10 +1074,17 @@ static void _PHY_PathBFillIQKMatrix8723B(
> /* */
> /* MP Already declare in odm.c */
>
> +/* Helper */
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this an AI patch? I really am starting to despise AI.
> +static inline void set_iqc(struct dm_odm_t *Odm, u32 *table)
> +{
> + PHY_SetBBReg(Odm->Adapter, table[KEY], bMaskDWord, table[VAL]);
> +}
> +
> void ODM_SetIQCbyRFpath(struct dm_odm_t *pDM_Odm, u32 RFpath)
> {
>
> struct odm_rf_cal_t *pRFCalibrateInfo = &pDM_Odm->RFCalibrateInfo;
> + u8 path;
>
> if (
> (pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC80][VAL] != 0x0) &&
> @@ -1085,23 +1092,15 @@ void ODM_SetIQCbyRFpath(struct dm_odm_t *pDM_Odm, u32 RFpath)
> (pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC80][VAL] != 0x0) &&
> (pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC14][VAL] != 0x0)
> ) {
> - if (RFpath) { /* S1: RFpath = 0, S0:RFpath = 1 */
> - /* S0 TX IQC */
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC94][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC94][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC80][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC80][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC4C][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC4C][VAL]);
> - /* S0 RX IQC */
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC14][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xC14][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xCA0][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S0][IDX_0xCA0][VAL]);
> - } else {
> - /* S1 TX IQC */
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC94][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC94][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC80][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC80][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC4C][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC4C][VAL]);
> - /* S1 RX IQC */
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC14][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xC14][VAL]);
> - PHY_SetBBReg(pDM_Odm->Adapter, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xCA0][KEY], bMaskDWord, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[PATH_S1][IDX_0xCA0][VAL]);
> - }
> + path = RFpath ? PATH_S0 : PATH_S1; /* S1: RFpath = 0, S0:RFpath = 1 */
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This comment came from the original code but it's junk. I guess the
comment is trying to explain that S0 is one and s1 is zero? Ugh...
Why? Anyway, just delete the comment because it's useless.
regards,
dan carpenter
> +
> + /* TX IQC */
> + set_iqc(pDM_Odm, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[path][IDX_0xC94]);
> + set_iqc(pDM_Odm, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[path][IDX_0xC80]);
> + set_iqc(pDM_Odm, pRFCalibrateInfo->TxIQC_8723B[path][IDX_0xC4C]);
> + /* RX IQC */
> + set_iqc(pDM_Odm, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[path][IDX_0xC14]);
> + set_iqc(pDM_Odm, pRFCalibrateInfo->RxIQC_8723B[path][IDX_0xCA0]);
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 9:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-01 13:27 [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: refactor ODM_SetIQCbyRFpath to reduce duplication Bera Yüzlü
2026-02-01 13:38 ` Greg KH
2026-02-02 9:03 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
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=aYBoe8HGZnp5YbQ5@stanley.mountain \
--to=dan.carpenter@linaro.org \
--cc=b9788213@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-staging@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox