Hi Sascha, On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:07:03AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 11:07:35AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 01:55:28PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > The command response handler copies the new MAC address over to > > > priv->curr_addr. The same is done in the code issuing the call > > > already, so drop the unnecessary HostCmd_CMD_802_11_MAC_ADDRESS > > > handling. > > > > It took a bit to figure out what you meant here -- I guess you're > > referring to mwifiex_set_mac_address()? It could help to document what > > you mean. > > Ok, I can clarify this a bit when sending this next time. > > Right now what we have is: > > 1) mwifiex_set_mac_address() sets priv->curr_addr to the desired new MAC > address > 2) mwifiex_cmd_802_11_mac_address() (called from mwifiex_send_cmd()) > constructs the HostCmd_CMD_802_11_MAC_ADDRESS command, using the MAC > address in priv->curr_addr > 3) mwifiex_ret_802_11_mac_address(), called from the response handler, > sets priv->curr_addr to the MAC address received with the command > response, which of course is the same as we initially copied there > in step 1), which makes 3) redundant and unnecessary Ack, that's the understanding I got, but it took a bit of reading to get there. > > I'm also a bit torn; this command API ostensibly has a (unused so far, > > for this command) HostCmd_ACT_GEN_GET mode, in which case this *is* > > important. > > > > If anything, I might consider dropping some of the handling in > > mwifiex_set_mac_address(), because it seems to presume (and then has to > > undo for failure) behavior of the underlying command. > > What we could do instead of dropping 3) is: > > 1) pass the new MAC address in the data_buf argument to > mwifiex_send_cmd() > 2) instead of priv->curr_addr use data_buf in > mwifiex_cmd_802_11_mac_address() > > With this the response handler would still set priv->curr_addr in case > the command went through successfully. No need to undo priv->curr_addr > to the previous MAC address in case the command failed. > > Sounds good to me. Is that where you aiming at? Yes, that seems about right. Brian
