On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 23:49 +0300, Denis Efremov wrote: > There is no need to check 'priv->bt_ant_couple_ok' twice in > rs_bt_update_lq(). The second check is always true. Thus, the > expression can be simplified. > > Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov <efremov@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c > index 74229fcb63a9..226165db7dfd 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/rs.c > @@ -851,7 +851,7 @@ static void rs_bt_update_lq(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct iwl_rxon_context *ctx, > * Is there a need to switch between > * full concurrency and 3-wire? > */ > - if (priv->bt_ci_compliance && priv->bt_ant_couple_ok) > + if (priv->bt_ci_compliance) > full_concurrent = true; > else > full_concurrent = false; Thanks, Denis! I have applied this to our internal tree and it will reach the mainline following our usual upstreaming process. -- Cheers, Luca.
