Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > We're just trusting that these tables are of the right dimensions, when >> > we could do better by just using the struct directly. Let's expose the >> > struct txpwr_lmt_cfg_pair instead. >> > >> > The table changes were made by using some Vim macros, so that should >> > help prevent any translation mistakes along the way. >> > >> > Remaining work: get the 'void *data' out of the generic struct >> > rtw_table; all of these tables really deserve to be their own data >> > structure, with proper type fields. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> To me this looks like a clear improvement and I'm inclined to apply it. Tony, >> what do you think? > > I think it indeed is better to use struct instead of arrays to access the table. > But what I am trying to do is to figure a way to write a proper struct for > radio_[ab] tables. Since the parsing logic is more complicated than others. > > Once I finished them, I will send a patch to change the tables. Are you saying that your patch will also clean up these txpwr tables and I should drop this patch? Or can I apply this? -- Kalle Valo
