On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 03:34:53PM +0800, Tim Jiang wrote:
> On 7/27/23 15:27, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:40:10PM +0800, Tim Jiang wrote:
> >> @@ -1762,10 +1763,32 @@ static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
> >> */
> >> set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_SIMULTANEOUS_DISCOVERY, &hdev->quirks);
> >>
> >> - bt_dev_info(hdev, "setting up %s",
> >> - qca_is_wcn399x(soc_type) ? "wcn399x" :
> >> - (soc_type == QCA_WCN6750) ? "wcn6750" :
> >> - (soc_type == QCA_WCN6855) ? "wcn6855" : "ROME/QCA6390");
> >> + switch (soc_type) {
> >> + case QCA_AR3002:
> >> + soc_name = "ar300x";
> >> + break;
> >> + case QCA_ROME:
> >> + soc_name = "ROME";
> >> + break;
> >> + case QCA_QCA6390:
> >> + soc_name = "QCA6390";
> >> + break;
> >> + case QCA_WCN3990:
> >> + case QCA_WCN3991:
> >> + case QCA_WCN3998:
> >> + soc_name = "wcn399x";
> >> + break;
> >> + case QCA_WCN6750:
> >> + soc_name = "wcn6750";
> >> + break;
> >> + case QCA_WCN6855:
> >> + soc_name = "wcn6855";
> >> + break;
> > I still think the above should be sorted (alphabetically) as maintaining
> > these lists otherwise soon becomes harder than it should be. And similar
> > throughout the driver.
> [Tim] Hi Johan: I think we no need to sort it, we only add the new btsoc
> name following the older one, for example , ar300x is the oldest , ROME
> is new than ar300x, actually qca2066 is newer version chip than qca6390,
> so I does not think we need to sort it.
Possibly, but generally this becomes hard to maintain and eventually
someone will need to sort these entries anyway. Therefore it's generally
a good idea to just do so from the start.
But it was good that you replied so that we know that this comment was
not just missed or ignored.
> >> + default:
> >> + soc_name = "unknown soc";
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> + bt_dev_info(hdev, "setting up %s", soc_name);
Johan
