Hi !
in your commit f5b586909581 ("rtlwifi: btcoexist: Modify driver to support
BT coexistence in rtl8723be") you introduced a if/else where both branches
are the same but the comment in the else branch suggests that this might be
unintended.
from code review only I can´t say what the intent is.
/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8723b1ant.c:halbtc8723b1ant_action_wifi_connected_bt_acl_busy()
1838 if ((bt_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_HIGH) ||
1839 (bt_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_STAY_HIGH)) {
1840 halbtc8723b1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC,
1841 true, 14);
1842 coex_dm->auto_tdma_adjust = false;
1843 } else { /*for low BT RSSI*/
1844 halbtc8723b1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC,
1845 true, 14);
1846 coex_dm->auto_tdma_adjust = false;
1847 }
basically the same construct is also in
halbtc8723b1ant_run_coexist_mechanism()
2213 if ((wifi_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_HIGH) ||
2214 (wifi_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_STAY_HIGH)) {
2215 halbtc8723b1ant_limited_tx(btcoexist,
2216 NORMAL_EXEC,
2217 1, 1, 1, 1);
2218 } else {
2219 halbtc8723b1ant_limited_tx(btcoexist,
2220 NORMAL_EXEC,
2221 1, 1, 1, 1);
2222 }
where the if condition is the same so the else may also only apply to the
low BT RSSI - and the if and else are again the same - if this is intended
or not is not clear. If this is intended it should have appropriate comments.
thx!
hofrat
