From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:33575 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753745AbZKHR70 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:26 -0500 Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so2496005ewy.37 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:59:31 -0800 (PST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Gertjan van Wingerde Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] rt2800: prepare for rt2800*_probe_hw_mode() unification Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:48:06 +0100 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn References: <20091108133854.23584.86842.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20091108133925.23584.37879.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <4AF6D727.6000100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF6D727.6000100@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200911081848.06556.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sunday 08 November 2009 15:35:19 Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > On 11/08/09 14:39, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > Subject: [PATCH] rt2800: prepare for rt2800*_probe_hw_mode() unification > > > > Enclose interface specific code in rt2800[pci,usb]_probe_hw_mode() > > with rt2x00_intf_is_[pci,usb]() checks. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz [ please remove needles parts of mails, thanks! ] > > @@ -800,17 +804,18 @@ static int rt2800usb_probe_hw_mode(struc > > spec->supported_bands = SUPPORT_BAND_2GHZ; > > spec->supported_rates = SUPPORT_RATE_CCK | SUPPORT_RATE_OFDM; > > > > - if (rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2820) || > > - rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2720)) { > > + if (rt2x00_rf(chip, RF2820) || > > + rt2x00_rf(chip, RF2720)) { > > spec->num_channels = 14; > > spec->channels = rf_vals; > > - } else if (rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2850) || > > - rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2750)) { > > + } else if (rt2x00_rf(chip, RF2850) || > > + rt2x00_rf(chip, RF2750)) { > > spec->supported_bands |= SUPPORT_BAND_5GHZ; > > spec->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(rf_vals); > > spec->channels = rf_vals; > > - } else if (rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF3020) || > > - rt2x00_rf(&rt2x00dev->chip, RF2020)) { > > + } else if (rt2x00_intf_is_usb(rt2x00dev) && > > + (rt2x00_rf(chip, RF3020) || > > + rt2x00_rf(chip, RF2020))) { > > spec->num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(rf_vals_3070); > > spec->channels = rf_vals_3070; > > } > > > > Hmm, another one where we can benefit from decoupling RF chipset code from the actual interface (USB or PCI) used. I do not see the need to check for > USB or PCI support, we just need to unify on the RF chipset level. > > BTW this rf_vals_3070 initialization looks weird. It doesn't resemble any other rf_channel initializations we have. I'd say we can go with the rt2800pci variant of the initialization here. IIRC from the vendor driver rf_vals_3070 is needed so by working in the incremental way I prefer to leave it as it is before somebody verifies this with the vendor driver, also it should be a separate patch for better bisectability anyway. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz