Re: [PATCH 06/10] mt76x2: move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h

[Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:49:23PM +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 3. Oct 2018, at 13:12, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:01:40PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 12:19:04AM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >>>> Move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h and rename it in mt76x02_dev
> >>>> in order to be shared between mt76x2 and mt76x0 driver
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> +struct mt76x02_dev {
> >>>> +     struct mt76_dev mt76; /* must be first */
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct mac_address macaddr_list[8];
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct mutex mutex;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     u8 txdone_seq;
> >>>> +     DECLARE_KFIFO_PTR(txstatus_fifo, struct mt76x02_tx_status);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct sk_buff *rx_head;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct tasklet_struct tx_tasklet;
> >>>> +     struct tasklet_struct pre_tbtt_tasklet;
> >>>> +     struct delayed_work cal_work;
> >>>> +     struct delayed_work mac_work;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     u32 aggr_stats[32];
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct sk_buff *beacons[8];
> >>>> +     u8 beacon_mask;
> >>>> +     u8 beacon_data_mask;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     u8 tbtt_count;
> >>>> +     u16 beacon_int;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct mt76x02_calibration cal;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     s8 target_power;
> >>>> +     s8 target_power_delta[2];
> >>>> +     bool enable_tpc;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     u8 coverage_class;
> >>>> +     u8 slottime;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +     struct mt76x02_dfs_pattern_detector dfs_pd;
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> static bool
> >>>> -mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x2_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
> >>>> +mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x02_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think this is right approach. I would rather prefer to have
> >>> common data structures embeded in mt76x2_dev and mt76x0_dev
> >>> structures to have chip sepcific fields/data separated.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> The reason of this patch is that mt76x0_dev fields are already in mt76x2_dev
> >> so I guess there is no need to have different structures. Moreover in
> >> this way we can
> >> remove a lot of duplicated code between mt76x0 and mt76x2 drivers.
> > 
> > But you can still create additional structures i.e.
> > 
> > mt76x02_power {
> >    s8 target_power;
> >    s8 target_power_delta[2];
> >    bool enable_tpc;
> > }
> > 
> > mt76x02_conf {
> >    u8 coverage_class;
> >         u8 slottime;
> > }
> > 
> > put them into mt76xN_dev and still remove dupicated code ?
> Quite often, mt76_dev would be needed as well for register access, which means extra parameters for a lot of functions.
> I think Lorenzo’s approach makes the code a lot more concise, and makes it easier to share more code between mt76x0 and mt76x2.

I think this could be solved very easly by container_of() macro if
there will be one mt76x02_dev struct just after mt76_dev.

Regerds
Stanislaw