On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 07:55:06PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> @@ -815,38 +813,26 @@ static void Hal_EfuseReadEFuse88E(struct adapter *Adapter,
> kfree(eFuseWord);
> }
>
> -static void ReadEFuseByIC(struct adapter *Adapter, u16 _offset, u16 _size_byte, u8 *pbuf, bool bPseudoTest)
> +static void ReadEFuseByIC(struct adapter *Adapter, u16 _offset, u16 _size_byte, u8 *pbuf)
> {
> - if (!bPseudoTest) {
> - int ret = _FAIL;
> - if (rtw_IOL_applied(Adapter)) {
> - rtl8188eu_InitPowerOn(Adapter);
> + int ret = _FAIL;
> + if (rtw_IOL_applied(Adapter)) {
> + rtl8188eu_InitPowerOn(Adapter);
>
> - iol_mode_enable(Adapter, 1);
> - ret = iol_read_efuse(Adapter, 0, _offset, _size_byte, pbuf);
> - iol_mode_enable(Adapter, 0);
> + iol_mode_enable(Adapter, 1);
> + ret = iol_read_efuse(Adapter, 0, _offset, _size_byte, pbuf);
> + iol_mode_enable(Adapter, 0);
>
> - if (_SUCCESS == ret)
> - goto exit;
> - }
> + if (_SUCCESS == ret)
> + return;
> }
> - Hal_EfuseReadEFuse88E(Adapter, _offset, _size_byte, pbuf, bPseudoTest);
It looks like this changes how the code works here. Originally we
called Hal_EfuseReadEFuse88E() fir rtw_IOL_applied() was false or if
iol_read_efuse() failed.
Was that intentional?
> -
> -exit:
> - return;
> -}
regards,
dan carpenter
