On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 06:48:11PM +0530, Yogesh Hegde wrote:
> Rename variables
> * TM_trigger to tm_trigger
> * TxPowerCheckCnt to txpower_check_count
> to avoid CamelCase which is not accepted by checkpatch.pl .
>
> Signed-off-by: Yogesh Hegde <yogi.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> index 767c746fc73d..0652940eecc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_dm.c
> @@ -919,32 +919,32 @@ static void _rtl92e_dm_check_tx_power_tracking_tssi(struct net_device *dev)
> static void _rtl92e_dm_check_tx_power_tracking_thermal(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
> - static u8 TM_Trigger;
> - u8 TxPowerCheckCnt = 0;
> + static u8 tm_trigger;
> + u8 txpower_check_count = 0;
While this is nice overall, I think you just found a bug in the driver.
Why is this a static variable? That means this affects all devices that
this driver touches, which seems very wrong, right?
So shouldn't tm_trigger be a per-device attribute?
> if (IS_HARDWARE_TYPE_8192SE(dev))
> - TxPowerCheckCnt = 5;
> + txpower_check_count = 5;
> else
> - TxPowerCheckCnt = 2;
> + txpower_check_count = 2;
> if (!priv->btxpower_tracking)
> return;
>
> - if (priv->txpower_count <= TxPowerCheckCnt) {
> + if (priv->txpower_count <= txpower_check_count) {
> priv->txpower_count++;
> return;
> }
>
> - if (!TM_Trigger) {
> + if (!tm_trigger) {
> rtl92e_set_rf_reg(dev, RF90_PATH_A, 0x02, bMask12Bits, 0x4d);
> rtl92e_set_rf_reg(dev, RF90_PATH_A, 0x02, bMask12Bits, 0x4f);
> rtl92e_set_rf_reg(dev, RF90_PATH_A, 0x02, bMask12Bits, 0x4d);
> rtl92e_set_rf_reg(dev, RF90_PATH_A, 0x02, bMask12Bits, 0x4f);
> - TM_Trigger = 1;
> + tm_trigger = 1;
It also should be a boolean, right?
Can you fix this up to be a per-device attribute instead?
thanks,
greg k-h
