RE: [PATCH v2 01/11] wifi: rtw88: add the RTL8723B chip type and SDIO helper

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

Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote:
> On July 31, 2026 3:29:40 AM GMT+02:00, Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> > Should receive filter implement in rtw_ops_configure_filter()?
> 
> Moot now, the receive filter handling goes with the patch I am
> dropping. For the record you were pointing at something real, although
> not quite where I first placed it.
> 
> rtw8723b.c does seed hal.rcr in mac_init, so it is not the problem. The
> asymmetry is in rtw_ops_configure_filter() itself: entering promiscuous
> clears BIT_CBSSID_BCN and BIT_CBSSID_DATA together, but leaving it
> restores only BIT_CBSSID_BCN. CBSSID_DATA is therefore gone from
> hal.rcr for good after the first scan, on any chip, until the next
> mac_init. That is what the per-association forcing was compensating
> for.
> 
> There is a second one next to it: rtw8723x.c writes WLAN_RCR_CFG
> straight to REG_RCR in mac_init without putting it into hal.rcr, so on
> 8723D and 8703B the first configure_filter() call replaces it with the
> core default from rtw_core_init(), which carries neither CBSSID bit nor
> AMF.
> 
> Both look worth fixing on their own and I am happy to send that
> separately if you agree with the reading. It is unrelated to this
> series.

I'm not sure if these specific things are hardly necessary. As you have
dropped many unnecessary patches copied from vendor driver, I think
you can consider if these can be dropped or integrate to existing 
chip_ops. I mean if you see somewhere you add rtw_is_8723bs(), just ask
yourself that is it actually necessary? Why don't existing chips need it?

> Happy to try that. Dropping the chip test would make the zero length
> check apply to every chip, so I would rather measure it on the 8703B
> path than assume; I do not have that hardware. If you are comfortable
> with it on inspection I will send it as a separate patch that removes
> the test entirely rather than fold it in here.

I don't have all hardware, so it is hard to me to verify the zero length
check. Even though I have hardware, it might happen rarely. So, maybe just
keep it as was... 

Ping-Ke