From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:33467 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753182AbZKHTfh (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:35:37 -0500 Received: by mail-ew0-f207.google.com with SMTP id 3so2544885ewy.37 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:35:43 -0800 (PST) From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Ivo van Doorn Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] rt2800: add eFuse EEPROM support code to rt2800lib Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:34:58 +0100 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Gertjan van Wingerde References: <20091108133854.23584.86842.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <200911081947.53754.bzolnier@gmail.com> <200911082025.48707.IvDoorn@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200911082025.48707.IvDoorn@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200911082034.59006.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sunday 08 November 2009 20:25:48 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > > > The purpose of the defines was to keep the EFUSE code out of the driver > > > > > on embedded systems. So either rt2800lib should do the same with ifdefs > > > > > in the rt2800lib.c and rt2800lib.h files, or we don't need the efuse specific > > > > > wrappers in rt2800pci.c. > > > > > > > > Said wrappers predate all of my rt2800 patches. > > > > > > Actually the code inside the function was larger, since you removed multiple > > > lines from the function (moved to rt2800lib). But as said above, the wrapper > > > had the code inside the ifdef, while the this patch has the code outside the > > > ifdef, and thus the wrapper has no need. > > > > > > > I think that they shouldn't have been added in the first place and I'll be > > > > happy to add patch removing them to rt2800 tree (since code savings seem to > > > > be really marginal and not worth the maintenance cost). > > > > > > Removing the ifdefs entirely would be fine. > > > > Like I said before -- this would mean driver's behavior change. Even though > > WISOC code is currently dead (RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X are never set) > > I prefer to not "overload" patches with logically different changes. > > The code is not really dead. RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X are platforms which > are currently present in another tree, it is not the job for rt2x00 to set those defines. > I don't know when these platforms will be merged upstream, nor do I know the status of them. They are not really our problem then and said tree should maintain RALINK_RT[288X,305X] specific changes itself. :) > > If you feel strongly about it please fix it in rt2x00 code and rt2800 tree > > will deal with it, or alternatively please send me an incremental patch. > > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn Thanks, I'll merge it later to rt2800. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz