Re: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: return false if not a broadcom board

[Greg Dietsche <gregory.dietsche@cuw.edu>]

On 06/17/2011 05:01 PM, Henry Ptasinski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:45:21PM -0700, Julian Calaby wrote:
>    
>> Henry,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 09:37, Henry Ptasinski<henryp@broadcom.com>  wrote:
>>      
>>> How's this for a somewhat clearer implementation:
>>>
>>> static bool brcms_c_validboardtype(struct brcms_c_hw_info *wlc_hw)
>>> {
>>>         bool goodboard = true;
>>>         uint boardrev = wlc_hw->boardrev;
>>>
>>>         if (wlc_hw->sih->boardvendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROADCOM) {
>>>        
>> You could reduce indentation by having this be:
>>
>> if (wlc_hw->sih->boardvendor != PCI_VENDOR_ID_BROADCOM)
>>      return true;
>>
>>      
>>>                 /* validate boardrev */
>>>                 if (boardrev == 0)
>>>                         goodboard = false;
>>>        
>> and remove the goodboard variable by having this return false immediately.
>>
>>      
>>>                 else if (boardrev>  0xff) {
>>>        
>> You could also drop the else and have this as
>>
>> if (boardrev<= 0xff)
>>      return true;
>>
>>      
>>>                         /* 4 bits each for board type, major, minor, and tiny
>>>                         version numbers */
>>>                         uint brt = (boardrev&  0xf000)>>  12;
>>>                         uint b0 = (boardrev&  0xf00)>>  8;
>>>                         uint b1 = (boardrev&  0xf0)>>  4;
>>>                         uint b2 = boardrev&  0xf;
>>>
>>>                         if ((brt>  2) || (brt == 0) || (b0>  9) || (b0 == 0)
>>>                                 || (b1>  9) || (b2>  9))
>>>                                 goodboard = false;
>>>        
>> and return false here too.
>>
>>      
>>>                 }
>>>         }
>>>
>>>         return goodboard;
>>>        
>> then just return true here.
>>
>>      
>>> }
>>>        
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- 
>> Julian Calaby
>>      
> Yea, it's a lot flatter with those changes.  Look for it in a patch set
> relatively soon ...
>
> - Henry
>
>
>    

All good points above - also, I might add a short comment to explain why 
the code checks the vendor id so it's clear to people who read the code 
in the future too.

Greg