On 25/09/2024 04:25, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 23/09/2024 08:47, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>>> Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +const struct rtw_chip_info rtw8812a_hw_spec = {
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it possible moving 8812a to individual file?
>>>>>>>>> Since you have rtw8812au.c and rtw8821au.c.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is possible. But most of the code is common to both chips.
>>>>>>>> Only the IQ calibration could be moved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, depend on how much IQK code echo chip has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IQ calibration for RTL8812AU is about 700 lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> rtw8812au -----> (a) rtw8812a
>>>>> |
>>>>> v
>>>>> (b) rtw8821a_common (hard to give a name)
>>>>> ^
>>>>> |
>>>>> rtw8821au -----> (c) rtw8821a
>>>>>
>>>>> Put all common code to (b). IQK code in (a) or (c).
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel you have thought above picture already. What are problems we will encounter?
>>>>> Many export symbols? If so, how about below?
>>>>>
>>>>> rtw8812au -----> (1) rtw8812a
>>>>> +---------+
>>>>> +-> (2) rtw8821a_common (hard to give a name)
>>>>> +---------+
>>>>> rtw8821au -----> (3) rtw8821a
>>>>>
>>>>> Put rtw8812a_hw_spec and rtw8821a_hw_spec in (2). Only IQK code in (1) and (3)
>>>>> respectively, and export IQK entry only. Does it work?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> For the name of the common module, I was thinking rtw88_88xxa.ko.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, what is the goal? To put the code in separate kernel
>>>> modules, or just separate files?
>>>
>>> I would like to reduce runtime memory. As I asked, how many IQK code are different
>>> from them? If you have separated and compiled them, can you share size by the
>>> output of 'size' command?
>>>
>>
>> I separated the IQK code into two files (still just one module).
>> size says:
>>
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 7192 32 0 7224 1c38 rtw8821a-iqk.o
>> 12319 40 0 12359 3047 rtw8812a-iqk.o
>>
>> This is x86_64.
>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we can have rtw88xxa.c (common code), rtw8821a.c (IQK code,
>>>> rtw8821a_hw_spec, bluetooth stuff), and rtw8812a.c (IQK code,
>>>> rtw8812a_hw_spec, some efuse stuff, channel switching)... if these
>>>> three files compile into a single module, rtw88_88xxa.ko.
>>>>
>>>> If each file compiles into a module of its own, we have circular
>>>> dependencies: rtw8821a_hw_spec -> common code -> IQK code.
>>>> If *_hw_spec go in the common module, it still depends on both of
>>>> the other two modules, so what use is it?
>>>
>>> If we have dependency of common code -> IQK code, we can't save runtime
>>> memory, because common code reference to both IQK code. So I felt
>>> dependency of IQK code would be rtw8812au --> IQK code as above second
>>> diagram.
>>>
>>> But if the work is complicated and save not few runtime memory, we can
>>> use simple design as current did.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The IQK code can be separated into different modules if I duplicate
>> rtw8821a_ops and rtw8821a_pwr_track, and rtw8821a_phy_pwrtrack takes
>> a pointer to the IQK function. Then your first diagram above can work.
>
> Not sure the "duplicate" you meant. If it only a struct, that would be fine.
> Not prefer duplicate of tables.
>
Yes, it's a struct rtw_chip_ops.
>>
>> The tables also take up a bit of space:
>>
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 16832 0 0 16832 41c0 rtw8821a_table.o
>> 21552 0 0 21552 5430 rtw8812a_table.o
>
> Good point.
>
>>
>> I don't know how many kilobytes is enough to make it worth
>> creating two more modules.
>
> I think we can list all *.o related to rtw8821a/8812a, and check the
> percentage to make decisions. I mean if it occupies 50%, I will prefer
> to have separated module. But I don't have an exact number now.
>
text data bss dec hex filename
12319 40 0 12359 3047 rtw8812a-iqk.o
21552 0 0 21552 5430 rtw8812a_table.o
7192 32 0 7224 1c38 rtw8821a-iqk.o
16832 0 0 16832 41c0 rtw8821a_table.o
29445 429 0 29874 74b2 rtw8821a.o
=========
87340 total. So it's about 38% for 8812a and 27% for 8821a.
Maybe a bit more in the final version.
