Marcin Ślusarz <marcin.slusarz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> wt., 4 cze 2024 o 02:57 Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> >
> > Marcin Ślusarz <marcin.slusarz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> > > @@ -1357,7 +1357,7 @@ static int rtw_power_on(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > if (rtwdev->always_power_on && test_bit(RTW_FLAG_POWERON, rtwdev->flags))
> > > - return 0;
> > > + goto success;
> >
> > rtw_hci_start_rx(rtwdev) is only needed by this case, so
> >
> > if (rtwdev->always_power_on && test_bit(RTW_FLAG_POWERON, rtwdev->flags)) {
> > rtw_hci_start_rx(rtwdev);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Yes, strictly speaking, it's needed only in the always_power_on case,
> but doing that in the common code path ensures that it's tested and
> still works.
For the non- always_power_on case, it calls rtw_hci_start()/rtw_hci_stop() already
so I don't think we should call these duplicates.
