> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 2020-04-29 17:56:53 [+0800], yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c > >> @@ -933,7 +933,7 @@ static void rtw_init_ht_cap(struct rtw_dev > *rtwdev, > >> ht_cap->cap = 0; > >> ht_cap->cap |= IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_20 | > >> IEEE80211_HT_CAP_MAX_AMSDU | > >> - IEEE80211_HT_CAP_LDPC_CODING | > >> + (rtw_chip_wcpu_11ac(rtwdev) ? > IEEE80211_HT_CAP_LDPC_CODING : 0) | > >> (1 << IEEE80211_HT_CAP_RX_STBC_SHIFT); > > > > What about > > > > ht_cap->cap = IEEE80211_HT_CAP_SGI_20 | > > IEEE80211_HT_CAP_MAX_AMSDU | > > (1 << IEEE80211_HT_CAP_RX_STBC_SHIFT); > > if (rtw_chip_wcpu_11ac(rtwdev)) > > ht_cap->cap |= IEEE80211_HT_CAP_LDPC_CODING; > > instead? > > Yes, that's much better. I even missed the '?' operator in my own review > as it was not that visible. > Will fix that in v4, thanks. Yen-Hsuan
