Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 10:32 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > There are two or three physical antenna in 8822be WiFi modules, so btcoex >> > introduce two coex files to handle these two cases. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > .../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b1ant.c | 5327 +++++++++++++++++++ >> > .../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b1ant.h | 413 ++ >> > .../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b2ant.c | 5370 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> > .../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b2ant.h | 434 ++ >> > 4 files changed, 11544 insertions(+) >> >> Huge patches like this are pain to review. I'm going to split this into >> two sets, patches 1-11 and patches 12-15. >> > Do I need to split the four files into four patches? At least two patches would make it a bit less painful, like one patch for halbtc8822b1ant.[c|h] and the other for halbtc8822b2ant.[c|h]. >> > +static struct coex_dm_8822b_1ant glcoex_dm_8822b_1ant; >> > +static struct coex_dm_8822b_1ant *coex_dm = &glcoex_dm_8822b_1ant; >> > +static struct coex_sta_8822b_1ant glcoex_sta_8822b_1ant; >> > +static struct coex_sta_8822b_1ant *coex_sta = &glcoex_sta_8822b_1ant; >> > +static struct rfe_type_8822b_1ant gl_rfe_type_8822b_1ant; >> > +static struct rfe_type_8822b_1ant *rfe_type = &gl_rfe_type_8822b_1ant; >> > + >> > +static const char *const glbt_info_src_8822b_1ant[] = { >> > + "BT Info[wifi fw]", >> > + "BT Info[bt rsp]", >> > + "BT Info[bt auto report]", >> > +}; >> > + >> > +static u32 glcoex_ver_date_8822b_1ant = 20180112; >> > +static u32 glcoex_ver_8822b_1ant = 0x59; >> > +static u32 glcoex_ver_btdesired_8822b_1ant = 0x56; >> >> Having static variables like this means that this will not work if there >> are two or more device per host, right? IIRC we discussed this before, >> so what's the plan to solve that? >> >> In upstream drivers there should not be artificial limitations like one >> device per host. Is that even checked anywhere or will it just be buggy >> if there are more than one device? >> > > The variables coex_dm/coex_sta/rfe_type should move to struct btcoexist, but > other btcoex files also use this style. So, my plan is to keep static variables > in this patch, and use another patch to remove all of them. Since this takes > a little time to discuss with our btcoex guys, could I send patches > 12-15 first? That sounds like a good plan to me. > The version related variables are used to display in debug message, so they > work on multiple devices. Ok. -- Kalle Valo