Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c
>> > @@ -883,7 +883,8 @@ mwifiex_config_scan(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
>> > sizeof(scan_cfg_out->specific_bssid));
>> >
>> > if (adapter->ext_scan &&
>> > - !is_zero_ether_addr(scan_cfg_out->specific_bssid))
>> {
>> > + !is_zero_ether_addr_unaligned(
>> > + scan_cfg_out->specific_bssid)) {
>>
>> Any comments? Is this approach of adding
>> is_zero_ether_addr_unaligned() fine? We already have similar routine
>> ether_addr_equal_unaligned().
>>
>> I don't see much benefit making a local, aligned copy here. It would
>> have to use memcpy w/ byte operations anyways and then still run
>> is_zero_ether_addr().
>>
>> Amitkumar -- Is it possible to modify struct mwifiex_scan_cmd_config {}
>> and align specific_bssid field to u16 boundary?
>>
>
> We can’t change the structure. The reason is firmware at receiving end
> expects the variables in the same order.
> is_zero_ether_addr_unaligned() should be fine.
If I understood correctly Dave doesn't like
is_zero_ether_addr_unaligned() so we can't use that either.
--
Kalle Valo
