From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87359C7618B for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B535206DD for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="IHN1HE79"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="DhxaidlF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729001AbfGYF7p (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 01:59:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:38684 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728970AbfGYF7p (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 01:59:45 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1C48460312; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:59:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1564034384; bh=ADI4qEjHe7gkm/jWbTCwTSNbvBnDACdDyQAayf58nYw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=IHN1HE79hHMp0TRyMiOoxNdkszJrnzEfU9KMT9Zef8coJ4ywasvPnjje7/dId0fje ztM0yBTOQeZC2JrX7ZOHep2CsEtVDnbHGRGsW7zRN/svrc7fL4fkF2UZ2Fyl+tHVR8 dWYqDQIB/GIBKJXoqK3zmX9ZcK19tq+4JxQzFJjQ= Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C52BE602B7; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:59:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1564034383; bh=ADI4qEjHe7gkm/jWbTCwTSNbvBnDACdDyQAayf58nYw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DhxaidlFEupym/VTOeH6Vqj6vjgzhNo8N6UgDnSH6GM/1DA88pCUsqrGkLUBsUZuI SDR9avVXEHJ/nBroGzDcQE2yDvNgdGRV0+4rXe+fNle1mGy2KZ23I8io6AQgDYVGAq NC3ZsOJZBEvW+FK51r+uANiHmWUSKbgC76A5f4Kw= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org C52BE602B7 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Tony Chuang Cc: Brian Norris , "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtw88: use txpwr_lmt_cfg_pair struct, not arrays References: <20190713013232.215138-1-briannorris@chromium.org> <20190724112304.7DDF960909@smtp.codeaurora.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:59:40 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Tony Chuang's message of "Thu, 25 Jul 2019 02:26:45 +0000") Message-ID: <87ef2ezmb7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Tony Chuang writes: >> Brian Norris wrote: >> >> > We're just trusting that these tables are of the right dimensions, when >> > we could do better by just using the struct directly. Let's expose the >> > struct txpwr_lmt_cfg_pair instead. >> > >> > The table changes were made by using some Vim macros, so that should >> > help prevent any translation mistakes along the way. >> > >> > Remaining work: get the 'void *data' out of the generic struct >> > rtw_table; all of these tables really deserve to be their own data >> > structure, with proper type fields. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris >> >> To me this looks like a clear improvement and I'm inclined to apply it. Tony, >> what do you think? > > I think it indeed is better to use struct instead of arrays to access the table. > But what I am trying to do is to figure a way to write a proper struct for > radio_[ab] tables. Since the parsing logic is more complicated than others. > > Once I finished them, I will send a patch to change the tables. Are you saying that your patch will also clean up these txpwr tables and I should drop this patch? Or can I apply this? -- Kalle Valo