Re: [PATCH v2 02/03] wl1271: 11n Support, ACX Commands

[Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@nokia.com>]

On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 20:08 +0200, ext Shahar Levi wrote:
> Added ACX command to the FW for 11n support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shahar Levi <shahar_levi@ti.com>
> ---

Again, mostly coding-style comments.


> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_acx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_acx.c
> index 6189934..cc6b7d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_acx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1271_acx.c
> @@ -1226,6 +1226,97 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +int wl1271_acx_set_ht_capabilities(struct wl1271 *wl,
> +				    struct ieee80211_sta_ht_cap *ht_cap,
> +				    bool allow_ht_operation)
> +{
> +	struct wl1271_acx_ht_capabilities *acx;
> +	/*
> +	* Note, currently this value will be set to FFFFFFFFFFFF to indicate
> +	* it is relevant for all peers since we only support HT in
> +	* infrastructure mode. Later on this field will be relevant to
> +	* IBSS/DLS operation */
> +	u8 mac_address[ETH_ALEN] = {0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff};

I didn't realize this when reviewing patch 01/03, but you could actually
remove the Note from the wl1271_acx.h file and leave it here.  There's
no need to have it repeated there and here.


> +	/* Allow HT Operation ? */
> +	if (true == allow_ht_operation) {

I know that some people like to put the constant in the left side of the
comparison operator to avoid problems with mistyping == as =, but
reading this in the opposite way is less intuitive (like top-posting? ;)
and the compiler, if called with reasonable options, will warn you if
you make that mistake.  So, summarizing, please use it like this
instead, then you don't even risk mistyping == in the first place :P

	if (allow_ht_operation) {


> +		acx->ht_capabilites =
> +		WL1271_ACX_FW_CAP_BIT_MASK_HT_OPERATION;

Add a more indentation on the second line, it's easier to read.


> +		acx->ht_capabilites |=
> +		((ht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_GRN_FLD) ?
> +		WL1271_ACX_FW_CAP_BIT_MASK_GREENFIELD_FRAME_FORMAT : 0);
> +		acx->ht_capabilites |=
> +		((ht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_20) ?
> +		WL1271_ACX_FW_CAP_BIT_MASK_SHORT_GI_FOR_20MHZ_PACKETS : 0);
> +		acx->ht_capabilites |=
> +		((ht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_HT_CAP_LSIG_TXOP_PROT) ?
> +		WL1271_ACX_FW_CAP_BIT_MASK_LSIG_TXOP_PROTECTION : 0);

Same thing for all these other assignments.


> +
> +		/* get date from A-MPDU parameters field */

"get data"


> +		acx->ampdu_max_length = ht_cap->ampdu_factor;
> +		acx->ampdu_min_spacing = ht_cap->ampdu_density;
> +
> +		memcpy(acx->mac_address, mac_address, ETH_ALEN);
> +	}
> +	/* HT operations are not allowed */
> +	else
> +		acx->ht_capabilites = 0;

According to Documentation/CodingStyle, you should write the else block
like this:

if (...) {
	...
} else {
	acx->ht_capabilities = 0;
}


> +int wl1271_acx_set_ht_information(struct wl1271 *wl,
> +				   u16 ht_operation_mode)
> +{
> +	struct wl1271_acx_ht_information *acx;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	wl1271_debug(DEBUG_ACX, "acx ht information setting");
> +
> +	acx = kzalloc(sizeof(*acx), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!acx) {
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	acx->ht_protection =
> +		(u8)(ht_operation_mode & IEEE80211_HT_OP_MODE_PROTECTION);
> +	acx->rifs_mode = 0;
> +	acx->gf_protection = 0;
> +	acx->ht_tx_burst_limit = 0;
> +	acx->dual_cts_protection = 0;
> +
> +	ret = wl1271_cmd_configure(wl,
> +				   ACX_HT_BSS_OPERATION,
> +				   acx,
> +				   sizeof(*acx));

Doesn't this fit in less lines?

-- 
Cheers,
Luca.