Re: [PATCH 1/2] rtl8192de: Clean up and fix 92D cut version constants and macros.

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 04/02/2012 09:25 AM, Forest Bond wrote:
> From: Forest Bond<forest.bond@rapidrollout.com>
>
> The previous definitions included both {B,C,D,E}_CUT_VERSION and
> CHIP_92D_{C,D}_CUT with conflicting values for the C and D cut versions,
> and literal hex values were used in the IS_92D_{C,D,E}_CUT macros.  So
> we clean all this up and in doing so enable cut-specific code paths for
> cuts C and D, which would not have been executed because the
> CHIP_92D_{C,D}_CUT constants were wrong and the cut version was thus
> recorded incorrectly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Forest Bond<forest.bond@rapidrollout.com>

Thanks for working on this driver. As there has been no traffic regarding its 
usage, I have not done much with it. I am in possession of two models, 
RTL8192DE-VC and RTL8192DE-VS. My recollection is that the VS did not work, but 
I need to test again. Perhaps your changes are what was needed.

> ---
>   drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/def.h |   17 ++++++++---------
>   1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/def.h b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/def.h
> index eafdf76..260ac7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/def.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/def.h
> @@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ enum version_8192d {
>
>   /* for 92D */
>   #define CHIP_92D_SINGLEPHY		BIT(9)
> -#define C_CUT_VERSION			BIT(13)
> -#define D_CUT_VERSION			((BIT(12)|BIT(13)))
> -#define E_CUT_VERSION			BIT(14)
>
>   /* Chip specific */
>   #define CHIP_BONDING_IDENTIFIER(_value)	(((_value)>>22)&0x3)
> @@ -173,7 +170,11 @@ enum version_8192d {
>   #define RF_TYPE_1T2R			BIT(4)
>   #define RF_TYPE_2T2R			BIT(5)
>   #define CHIP_VENDOR_UMC			BIT(7)
> -#define B_CUT_VERSION			BIT(12)
> +#define CHIP_92D_A_CUT			(0<<12)
> +#define CHIP_92D_B_CUT			(1<<12)
> +#define CHIP_92D_C_CUT			(2<<12)
> +#define CHIP_92D_D_CUT			(3<<12)
> +#define CHIP_92D_E_CUT			(4<<12)

Please keep the BIT(X) notation here to make it consistent.

>
>   /* MASK */
>   #define IC_TYPE_MASK			(BIT(0)|BIT(1)|BIT(2))
> @@ -205,15 +206,13 @@ enum version_8192d {
>   					 CHIP_92D) ? true : false)
>   #define IS_92D_C_CUT(version)		((IS_92D(version)) ?		\
>   				 ((GET_CVID_CUT_VERSION(version) ==	\
> -				 0x2000) ? true : false) : false)
> +				 CHIP_92D_C_CUT) ? true : false) : false)
>   #define IS_92D_D_CUT(version)			((IS_92D(version)) ?	\
>   				 ((GET_CVID_CUT_VERSION(version) ==	\
> -				 0x3000) ? true : false) : false)
> +				 CHIP_92D_D_CUT) ? true : false) : false)
>   #define IS_92D_E_CUT(version)		((IS_92D(version)) ?		\
>   				 ((GET_CVID_CUT_VERSION(version) ==	\
> -				 0x4000) ? true : false) : false)
> -#define CHIP_92D_C_CUT			BIT(10)
> -#define CHIP_92D_D_CUT			BIT(11)
> +				 CHIP_92D_E_CUT) ? true : false) : false)
>
>   enum rf_optype {
>   	RF_OP_BY_SW_3WIRE = 0,

These IS_92D_X_CUT macros are ugly, but I don't see any way to improve them. I 
guess we are stuck with them.

Larry