From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx4.wp.pl (mx4.wp.pl [212.77.101.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E79DB189F3B for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:38:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.77.101.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735987086; cv=none; b=eDxfeYkb183uKsNK3ManX5qVie5zlEtMWBNYJVXvRrpp3hR68Gz6aD0XJgFN1f+g7rO9pGLwyvxxUcsJfkDSO5ktbKFXYwarEHqUFVXXbBHsdVKDub2OHlinQyFnlY0kGZ9qKe5eqsTiKTtsqZ93ec+548wemnmBkd4ZGi7Dh6k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735987086; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j99Hy9f/m/6H2ncMt2PkmqzVoiQQd4NCimgrV8e/PBE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bcwz0d7HGzqZzu3UrD9aiKQACalzKWS/9PvUVfkFBuVQQ0F8TjYAratwWTg1rhE5goMXs/oJSo/+/c2IhbFOYO4LgUMXxwU3XwYKsgc6qsAmgzX2v8L+lhKDRXt2A+3bxQH9STiqEPqvMeoODsHlW9m+NGdMudXdblSWctnj2Qk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=wp.pl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wp.pl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wp.pl header.i=@wp.pl header.b=xf/cBcmU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.77.101.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=wp.pl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=wp.pl Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wp.pl header.i=@wp.pl header.b="xf/cBcmU" Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.wp.pl 9043 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2025 11:37:54 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wp.pl; s=20241105; t=1735987074; bh=qeXFkM/Z+0bLLnbriu+sMFeZVgPmL4DAuWtHihsWRo8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject; b=xf/cBcmUERlkfMY8kF59exPSp6p4kxCBryrl9n19y/nl3byAAsQMh3xRJM2uJCgsR HREvW9fRraN6gSchMLobc6G+PHDd+/QlGq/0RRyC3JHGgmhwBvahQXrXUao1lg3hRL GiGTs2k9+3ZDwfzx5V9W0ZPiLIUJUcsPCQLM9PIvX2bW3iaFlCdhsX1z5azlVkxMym G5VNSc2++fJtat2ROBpHZifZAdi+r1LKz1W46jvLTT+8p8KYC8xvkqROGsz/wj+H+N 90uLJrqKxHTMUcl+tsv5jI/L6nrR7ZuL3cbv0Kn98DHzOJdgL4EF6ZzKjJ3i2AJCHg k+mNeSJryH8+g== Received: from host-178.215.207.194-internet.zabrze.debacom.pl (HELO localhost) (stf_xl@wp.pl@[178.215.207.194]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp.wp.pl (WP-SMTPD) with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP for ; 4 Jan 2025 11:37:54 +0100 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:37:53 +0100 From: Stanislaw Gruszka To: Ariel Otilibili-Anieli Cc: Daniel Golle , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Kalle Valo , Tomislav =?utf-8?Q?Po=C5=BEega?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rt2x00: Remove unusued value Message-ID: <20250104103753.GA2228@wp.pl> References: <20241221124445.1094460-1-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> <20241221124445.1094460-2-ariel.otilibili-anieli@eurecom.fr> <20250103085540.GA94204@wp.pl> <20250103131002.GA100011@wp.pl> <2f7a83-6777e880-a451-5cf12280@99910178> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2f7a83-6777e880-a451-5cf12280@99910178> X-WP-MailID: 0dd64d0715a5a75b870d14f33d310231 X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy Poczty Wirtualnej Polski X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [EWME] Hi On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 02:39:21PM +0100, Ariel Otilibili-Anieli wrote: > On Friday, January 03, 2025 14:10 CET, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 11:40:52AM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:55:40AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > > > > I agree with the likely intention here, however, the vendor driver > > > also comes with the dead code, see > > > https://github.com/lixuande/rt2860v2/blob/master/files/rt2860v2/common/cmm_rf_cal.c#L2690 > > > > > > So this is certainly a bug in the vendor driver as well which got ported > > > bug-by-bug to rt2x00... Not sure what is the best thing to do in this > > > case. > > > > As this was already tested and match vendor driver I would prefer > > not to change behavior even if it looks suspicious. > > Thanks for having looked into this; I much appreciate your feedback. > > From what you two said, I understand that the patch should remove the duplicate code, and not change the logic behind. > > Is this right? Yes. Regards Stanislaw > > If so; then, I have nothing else to do. > > > > Regards > > Stanislaw > > >