On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 03:05:13AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > There are some macros which are not really useful, but make the code > harder to read. Replace these with clearer codes. > > Signed-off-by: Nam Cao <namcaov@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h | 10 +++--- > drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/basic_types.h | 31 ------------------- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h > index 20d73ca781e8..79e4210c6b65 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/Hal8188ERateAdaptive.h > @@ -26,15 +26,15 @@ > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_0(__paddr) \ > le16_get_bits(*(__le16 *)__paddr, GENMASK(15, 0)) > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_1(__paddr) \ > - LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 2, 0, 8) > + ((u8 *)__paddr)[2] > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_2(__paddr) \ > - LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 3, 0, 8) > + ((u8 *)__paddr)[3] > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_3(__paddr) \ > - LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 4, 0, 8) > + ((u8 *)__paddr)[4] > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_RERTY_4(__paddr) \ > - LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 5, 0, 8) > + ((u8 *)__paddr)[5] > #define GET_TX_REPORT_TYPE1_DROP_0(__paddr) \ > - LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__paddr + 6, 0, 8) > + ((u8 *)__paddr)[6] > /* End rate adaptive define */ > > int ODM_RAInfo_Init_all(struct odm_dm_struct *dm_odm); > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/basic_types.h b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/basic_types.h > index ffb21170e898..c4b08fb82200 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/basic_types.h > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/include/basic_types.h > @@ -15,37 +15,6 @@ typedef void (*proc_t)(void *); > /* TODO: Macros Below are Sync from SD7-Driver. It is necessary > * to check correctness */ > > -/* > - * Call endian free function when > - * 1. Read/write packet content. > - * 2. Before write integer to IO. > - * 3. After read integer from IO. > -*/ > - > -/* Convert little data endian to host ordering */ > -#define EF1BYTE(_val) \ > - ((u8)(_val)) > - > -/* Create a bit mask */ > -#define BIT_LEN_MASK_8(__bitlen) \ > - (0xFF >> (8 - (__bitlen))) > - > -/*Description: > - * Return 4-byte value in host byte ordering from > - * 4-byte pointer in little-endian system. > - */ > -#define LE_P1BYTE_TO_HOST_1BYTE(__pstart) \ > - (EF1BYTE(*((u8 *)(__pstart)))) > - > -/*Description: > -Translate subfield (continuous bits in little-endian) of 4-byte > -value to host byte ordering.*/ > -#define LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE(__pstart, __bitoffset, __bitlen) \ > - ( \ > - (LE_P1BYTE_TO_HOST_1BYTE(__pstart) >> (__bitoffset)) & \ > - BIT_LEN_MASK_8(__bitlen) \ > - ) > - > #define N_BYTE_ALIGMENT(__value, __aligment) ((__aligment == 1) ? \ > (__value) : (((__value + __aligment - 1) / __aligment) * __aligment)) > > -- > 2.25.1 > > Hi, This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux kernel tree. You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s) as indicated below: - Your patch did many different things all at once, making it difficult to review. All Linux kernel patches need to only do one thing at a time. If you need to do multiple things (such as clean up all coding style issues in a file/driver), do it in a sequence of patches, each one doing only one thing. This will make it easier to review the patches to ensure that they are correct, and to help alleviate any merge issues that larger patches can cause. - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to properly describe the change. - You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg, and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should look like. If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received from other developers. thanks, greg k-h's patch email bot
