[Patch 1/2]r8169: remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd

[Patch 1/2]r8169: remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd

[Junchang Wang]

Some clean up work. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.


Writting "cmd" back without modification is redundant.
Secondly, because rtl_rw_cpluscmd is just encapsulation of
RTL_R16, remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd.

Signed-off-by: Junchang Wang <junchangwang@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/r8169.c |   13 ++-----------
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c
index 217e709..6a37813 100644
--- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
+++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
@@ -3404,15 +3404,6 @@ static void rtl_set_rx_tx_desc_registers(struct rtl8169_private *tp,
 	RTL_W32(RxDescAddrLow, ((u64) tp->RxPhyAddr) & DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
 }
 
-static u16 rtl_rw_cpluscmd(void __iomem *ioaddr)
-{
-	u16 cmd;
-
-	cmd = RTL_R16(CPlusCmd);
-	RTL_W16(CPlusCmd, cmd);
-	return cmd;
-}
-
 static void rtl_set_rx_max_size(void __iomem *ioaddr, unsigned int rx_buf_sz)
 {
 	/* Low hurts. Let's disable the filtering. */
@@ -3471,7 +3462,7 @@ static void rtl_hw_start_8169(struct net_device *dev)
 	    (tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_04))
 		rtl_set_rx_tx_config_registers(tp);
 
-	tp->cp_cmd |= rtl_rw_cpluscmd(ioaddr) | PCIMulRW;
+	tp->cp_cmd |= RTL_R16(CPlusCmd) | PCIMulRW;
 
 	if ((tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_02) ||
 	    (tp->mac_version == RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_03)) {
@@ -3906,7 +3897,7 @@ static void rtl_hw_start_8101(struct net_device *dev)
 
 	rtl_set_rx_max_size(ioaddr, tp->rx_buf_sz);
 
-	tp->cp_cmd |= rtl_rw_cpluscmd(ioaddr) | PCIMulRW;
+	tp->cp_cmd |= RTL_R16(CPlusCmd) | PCIMulRW;
 
 	RTL_W16(CPlusCmd, tp->cp_cmd);
-- 

Re: [Patch 1/2]r8169: remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd

[Francois Romieu]

Junchang Wang <junchangwang@gmail.com> :
> Some clean up work. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.
> 
> Writting "cmd" back without modification is redundant.
> Secondly, because rtl_rw_cpluscmd is just encapsulation of
> RTL_R16, remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd.

I'll figure that there may be some value in the patch if you
test the change on revision X, Y and Z.

Some cosmetic isolated in a sequence of changes can be fine too.

Otherwise I consider such cleanups as a (useless and) conceivably
harmful distraction.

-- 
Ueimor

Re: [Patch 1/2]r8169: remove rtl_rw_cpluscmd

[Junchang Wang]

> I'll figure that there may be some value in the patch if you
> test the change on revision X, Y and Z.

Frankly, I just tested the patch on my NIC. It works fine.

>
> Some cosmetic isolated in a sequence of changes can be fine too.
>
> Otherwise I consider such cleanups as a (useless and) conceivably
> harmful distraction.

As I said, those points really confused me while I was going over the
driver. I searched google and mailing list archive but failed to get
any traces. It seems they exist for a long time without any touch
(care). So I decided to post the patches to see whether they are
harmful or not.

OK. I'll bypass legacy hardware-related codes since they are really
very tricky. :)

Thanks Francois.

-- 
--Junchang