RE: [PATCH v5 4/6] wifi: rtlwifi: Move code from rtl8192de to rtl8192d-common

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17/04/2024 07:04, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> +static void _rtl92de_read_adapter_info(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
> >> +{
> >> +       struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw);
> >> +       struct rtl_efuse *rtlefuse = rtl_efuse(rtl_priv(hw));
> >> +       struct rtl_hal *rtlhal = rtl_hal(rtl_priv(hw));
> >> +       int params[] = {RTL8190_EEPROM_ID, EEPROM_VID, EEPROM_DID,
> >> +                       EEPROM_SVID, EEPROM_SMID, EEPROM_MAC_ADDR_MAC0_92D,
> >> +                       EEPROM_CHANNEL_PLAN, EEPROM_VERSION, EEPROM_CUSTOMER_ID,
> >> +                       COUNTRY_CODE_WORLD_WIDE_13};
> >> +       int i;
> >> +       u16 usvalue;
> >> +       u8 *hwinfo;
> >> +
> >> +       hwinfo = kzalloc(HWSET_MAX_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +       if (!hwinfo)
> >> +               return;
> >> +
> >> +       if (rtl_get_hwinfo(hw, rtlpriv, HWSET_MAX_SIZE, hwinfo, params))
> >> +               goto exit;
> >> +
> >> +       _rtl92de_efuse_update_chip_version(hw);
> >> +       _rtl92de_read_macphymode_and_bandtype(hw, hwinfo);
> >> +
> >> +       /* Read Permanent MAC address for 2nd interface */
> >> +       if (rtlhal->interfaceindex != 0) {
> >> +               for (i = 0; i < 6; i += 2) {
> >> +                       usvalue = *(u16 *)&hwinfo[EEPROM_MAC_ADDR_MAC1_92D + i];
> >> +                       *((u16 *)(&rtlefuse->dev_addr[i])) = usvalue;
> >
> > Copying u16 looks weird. I guess it would like to swap bytes (endian problem).
> > At least it should be '__le16' or '__be16' because hwinfo[] is from efuse.
> >
> 
> It is weird. rtl_get_hwinfo() in efuse.c does the same thing.
> 
> I don't think this code is swapping the bytes. What reason can
> it have to swap them anyway?
> 
> Maybe it's a (questionable) optimisation, only three copies
> instead of six.
> 

If that just want to copy address, we can use ether_addr_copy() instead.
I was afraid the order of efuse is different from dev_addr[], but look again.
The byte order seems the same, right?