From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:4597 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030872AbXCNUCW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:02:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:49:50 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Larry Finger Cc: Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Eliminate some 'G Mode Enable' magic numbers Message-ID: <20070314194950.GG3372@tuxdriver.com> References: <45f82054.fJi116VPchav9Mns%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <45f82054.fJi116VPchav9Mns%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:18:28AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > In code manipulating the TM State Low register of 802.11 cores, two > different magic numbers are used to reference the 'G Mode Enable' bit. > One of these, 0x20000000, is clear, but the other, (0x800 << 18), is not. > This patch replaces both types with a defined constant. In addition, two > bits in the TM State High registers are given definitions to help in > following the code. Looks reasonable to me -- not sure why this is an RFC? Does anyone object? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com