On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 14:38 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Luca Coelho <luca@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch introduces a new instance of rate_control_ops for
> > the new API (adding only empty stubs here and the subsequent
> > patches in the series will fill in the implementation).
> > The decision which API to use is done during the register
> > step according to FW TLV.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> [...]
>
> > +void iwl_mvm_rs_add_sta(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, struct iwl_mvm_sta
> > *mvmsta)
> > +{
> > + struct iwl_lq_sta_rs_fw *lq_sta = &mvmsta->lq_sta.rs_fw;
> > +
> > + IWL_DEBUG_RATE(mvm, "create station rate scale window\n");
> > +
> > + lq_sta->pers.drv = mvm;
> > + lq_sta->pers.sta_id = mvmsta->sta_id;
> > + lq_sta->pers.chains = 0;
> > + memset(lq_sta->pers.chain_signal, 0, sizeof(lq_sta-
> > >pers.chain_signal));
> > + lq_sta->pers.last_rssi = S8_MIN;
> > + lq_sta->last_rate_n_flags = 0;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CPTCFG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS
> > + lq_sta->pers.dbg_fixed_rate = 0;
> > +#endif
> > +}
>
> CPTCFG_ doesn't look right. But no need to resend just because of
> this,
> you can send a followup patch.
Gack, how come I let this go through? My (actually Emmanuel's ;)
checker script should catch this. Maybe I forgot to run it on v2?
Sorry, dude!
--
Luca.
