On Sat, 2020-11-14 at 15:22 +0000, xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The value of the bool variable ap_enable is always false, so the first
> if branch is unreached code. Remove it.
>
> Reported-by: Tosk Robot <tencent_os_robot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c | 12 +-----------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> index aa08fd7d9fcd..9c7963e45755 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> @@ -863,18 +863,8 @@ static void rtw_coex_set_tdma(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u8
> byte1, u8 byte2,
> struct rtw_coex_dm *coex_dm = &coex->dm;
> struct rtw_chip_info *chip = rtwdev->chip;
> u8 ps_type = COEX_PS_WIFI_NATIVE;
> - bool ap_enable = false;
The variable 'ap_enable' is used to indicate a vif is running in AP mode.
At the first coex version, rtw88 doesn't support AP mode yet, so ap_enable
is set to false. For now, AP mode is ready, and I can send a patch to set
proper value depends on vif mode.
Since I'm submitting coex patches to upgrade the code. In order to avoid
conflicting, I'll send the patch to set proper ap_enable after all my patches
are merged.
> -
> - if (ap_enable && (byte1 & BIT(4) && !(byte1 & BIT(5)))) {
> - byte1 &= ~BIT(4);
> - byte1 |= BIT(5);
> -
> - byte5 |= BIT(5);
> - byte5 &= ~BIT(6);
>
> - ps_type = COEX_PS_WIFI_NATIVE;
> - rtw_coex_power_save_state(rtwdev, ps_type, 0x0, 0x0);
> - } else if (byte1 & BIT(4) && !(byte1 & BIT(5))) {
> + if (byte1 & BIT(4) && !(byte1 & BIT(5))) {
> if (chip->pstdma_type == COEX_PSTDMA_FORCE_LPSOFF)
> ps_type = COEX_PS_LPS_OFF;
> else
> --
> 2.20.0
>
---
Ping-Ke
