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
