Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -2065,25 +2066,26 @@ const struct rtw_chip_info rtw8703b_hw_spec = {
> .bt_rssi_type = COEX_BTRSSI_RATIO,
> .ant_isolation = 15,
> .rssi_tolerance = 2,
> - .bt_rssi_step = bt_rssi_step_8703b,
> - .wl_rssi_step = wl_rssi_step_8703b,
> /* sant -> shared antenna, nsant -> non-shared antenna
> * Not sure if 8703b versions with non-shard antenna even exist.
> */
> .table_sant_num = ARRAY_SIZE(table_sant_8703b),
> - .table_sant = table_sant_8703b,
Not sure why you move array and array size apart.
No need to churn this as well as other similar stuffs.
This patch can only change things required by what subject mention. Align these
fields by another patch, or do it later. Both are fine to me.
> .table_nsant_num = 0,
> - .table_nsant = NULL,
> .tdma_sant_num = ARRAY_SIZE(tdma_sant_8703b),
> - .tdma_sant = tdma_sant_8703b,
> .tdma_nsant_num = 0,
> - .tdma_nsant = NULL,
> - .wl_rf_para_num = ARRAY_SIZE(rf_para_tx_8703b),
> - .wl_rf_para_tx = rf_para_tx_8703b,
> - .wl_rf_para_rx = rf_para_rx_8703b,
> .bt_afh_span_bw20 = 0x20,
> .bt_afh_span_bw40 = 0x30,
> .afh_5g_num = ARRAY_SIZE(afh_5g_8703b),
> + .wl_rf_para_num = ARRAY_SIZE(rf_para_tx_8703b),
> + .coex_info_hw_regs_num = 0,
> + .bt_rssi_step = bt_rssi_step_8703b,
> + .wl_rssi_step = wl_rssi_step_8703b,
> + .table_nsant = NULL,
> + .table_sant = table_sant_8703b,
> + .tdma_sant = tdma_sant_8703b,
> + .tdma_nsant = NULL,
> + .wl_rf_para_tx = rf_para_tx_8703b,
> + .wl_rf_para_rx = rf_para_rx_8703b,
> .afh_5g = afh_5g_8703b,
> /* REG_BTG_SEL doesn't seem to have a counterpart in the
> * vendor driver. Mathematically it's REG_PAD_CTRL1 + 3.
> @@ -2096,7 +2098,6 @@ const struct rtw_chip_info rtw8703b_hw_spec = {
> /* These registers are used to read (and print) from if
> * CONFIG_RTW88_DEBUGFS is enabled.
> */
> - .coex_info_hw_regs_num = 0,
> .coex_info_hw_regs = NULL,
> };
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtw8703b_hw_spec);
