Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtw88: coex: remove rf4ce unused code

[Dmitry Kandybka <d.kandybka@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2024-08-20 at 08:52 +0300, Dmitry Kandybka wrote:
> In 'rtw_coex_run_coex', 'rf4ce_en' is hardcoded to false,
> so 'rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(rtwdev)' is never executed.
> Assuming that rf4ce was never fully implemented,
> remove lookalike leftovers. Compile tested only.
> 
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> 
> Fixes: a9359faaa47d ("rtw88: coex: add the mechanism for RF4CE")
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kandybka <d.kandybka@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c | 30 +----------------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> index de3332eb7a22..1fbcf701e7b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> @@ -1591,31 +1591,6 @@ static void rtw_coex_action_freerun(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev)
>  	rtw_coex_tdma(rtwdev, false, 100);
>  }
>  
> -static void rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> -{
> -	const struct rtw_chip_info *chip = rtwdev->chip;
> -	struct rtw_efuse *efuse = &rtwdev->efuse;
> -	u8 table_case, tdma_case;
> -
> -	rtw_dbg(rtwdev, RTW_DBG_COEX, "[BTCoex], %s()\n", __func__);
> -
> -	rtw_coex_set_ant_path(rtwdev, false, COEX_SET_ANT_2G);
> -	rtw_coex_set_rf_para(rtwdev, chip->wl_rf_para_rx[0]);
> -
> -	if (efuse->share_ant) {
> -		/* Shared-Ant */
> -		table_case = 9;
> -		tdma_case = 16;
> -	} else {
> -		/* Non-Shared-Ant */
> -		table_case = 100;
> -		tdma_case = 100;
> -	}
> -
> -	rtw_coex_table(rtwdev, false, table_case);
> -	rtw_coex_tdma(rtwdev, false, tdma_case);
> -}
> -
>  static void rtw_coex_action_bt_whql_test(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
>  {
>  	const struct rtw_chip_info *chip = rtwdev->chip;
> @@ -2531,7 +2506,6 @@ static void rtw_coex_run_coex(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev, u8 reason)
>  	struct rtw_coex *coex = &rtwdev->coex;
>  	struct rtw_coex_dm *coex_dm = &coex->dm;
>  	struct rtw_coex_stat *coex_stat = &coex->stat;
> -	bool rf4ce_en = false;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&rtwdev->mutex);
>  
> @@ -2587,9 +2561,7 @@ static void rtw_coex_run_coex(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev, u8 reason)
>  	coex_stat->wl_coex_mode = COEX_WLINK_2G1PORT;
>  
>  	if (coex_stat->bt_disabled) {
> -		if (coex_stat->wl_connected && rf4ce_en)
> -			rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(rtwdev);
> -		else if (!coex_stat->wl_connected)
> +		if (!coex_stat->wl_connected)
>  			rtw_coex_action_wl_not_connected(rtwdev);
>  		else
>  			rtw_coex_action_wl_only(rtwdev);
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
This is kindly reminder. Could you pay some attention to this patch and
clarify if the rf4ce is actual for this moment and future?
-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Kandybka