> 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? > You can apply this. And I can take care of the rest of them. :) Thanks. Tony
