>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 12:19:04AM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h and rename it in mt76x02_dev
> > in order to be shared between mt76x2 and mt76x0 driver
> <snip>
> > +struct mt76x02_dev {
> > + struct mt76_dev mt76; /* must be first */
> > +
> > + struct mac_address macaddr_list[8];
> > +
> > + struct mutex mutex;
> > +
> > + u8 txdone_seq;
> > + DECLARE_KFIFO_PTR(txstatus_fifo, struct mt76x02_tx_status);
> > +
> > + struct sk_buff *rx_head;
> > +
> > + struct tasklet_struct tx_tasklet;
> > + struct tasklet_struct pre_tbtt_tasklet;
> > + struct delayed_work cal_work;
> > + struct delayed_work mac_work;
> > +
> > + u32 aggr_stats[32];
> > +
> > + struct sk_buff *beacons[8];
> > + u8 beacon_mask;
> > + u8 beacon_data_mask;
> > +
> > + u8 tbtt_count;
> > + u16 beacon_int;
> > +
> > + struct mt76x02_calibration cal;
> > +
> > + s8 target_power;
> > + s8 target_power_delta[2];
> > + bool enable_tpc;
> > +
> > + u8 coverage_class;
> > + u8 slottime;
> > +
> > + struct mt76x02_dfs_pattern_detector dfs_pd;
> > +};
> > +
> <snip>
> > static bool
> > -mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x2_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
> > +mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x02_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
>
> I don't think this is right approach. I would rather prefer to have
> common data structures embeded in mt76x2_dev and mt76x0_dev
> structures to have chip sepcific fields/data separated.
>
The reason of this patch is that mt76x0_dev fields are already in mt76x2_dev
so I guess there is no need to have different structures. Moreover in
this way we can
remove a lot of duplicated code between mt76x0 and mt76x2 drivers.
Regards,
Lorenzo
> Regards
> Stanislaw
>
