On Tue, 2024-08-20 at 08:52 +0300, Dmitry Kandybka wrote:
> In 'rtw_coex_run_coex', 'rf4ce_en' is hardcoded to false,
> so 'rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(rtwdev)' is never executed.
> Assuming that rf4ce was never fully implemented,
> remove lookalike leftovers. Compile tested only.
>
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
>
> Fixes: a9359faaa47d ("rtw88: coex: add the mechanism for RF4CE")
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kandybka <d.kandybka@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c | 30 +----------------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> index de3332eb7a22..1fbcf701e7b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/coex.c
> @@ -1591,31 +1591,6 @@ static void rtw_coex_action_freerun(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev)
> rtw_coex_tdma(rtwdev, false, 100);
> }
>
> -static void rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> -{
> - const struct rtw_chip_info *chip = rtwdev->chip;
> - struct rtw_efuse *efuse = &rtwdev->efuse;
> - u8 table_case, tdma_case;
> -
> - rtw_dbg(rtwdev, RTW_DBG_COEX, "[BTCoex], %s()\n", __func__);
> -
> - rtw_coex_set_ant_path(rtwdev, false, COEX_SET_ANT_2G);
> - rtw_coex_set_rf_para(rtwdev, chip->wl_rf_para_rx[0]);
> -
> - if (efuse->share_ant) {
> - /* Shared-Ant */
> - table_case = 9;
> - tdma_case = 16;
> - } else {
> - /* Non-Shared-Ant */
> - table_case = 100;
> - tdma_case = 100;
> - }
> -
> - rtw_coex_table(rtwdev, false, table_case);
> - rtw_coex_tdma(rtwdev, false, tdma_case);
> -}
> -
> static void rtw_coex_action_bt_whql_test(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> {
> const struct rtw_chip_info *chip = rtwdev->chip;
> @@ -2531,7 +2506,6 @@ static void rtw_coex_run_coex(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev, u8 reason)
> struct rtw_coex *coex = &rtwdev->coex;
> struct rtw_coex_dm *coex_dm = &coex->dm;
> struct rtw_coex_stat *coex_stat = &coex->stat;
> - bool rf4ce_en = false;
>
> lockdep_assert_held(&rtwdev->mutex);
>
> @@ -2587,9 +2561,7 @@ static void rtw_coex_run_coex(struct rtw_dev
> *rtwdev, u8 reason)
> coex_stat->wl_coex_mode = COEX_WLINK_2G1PORT;
>
> if (coex_stat->bt_disabled) {
> - if (coex_stat->wl_connected && rf4ce_en)
> - rtw_coex_action_rf4ce(rtwdev);
> - else if (!coex_stat->wl_connected)
> + if (!coex_stat->wl_connected)
> rtw_coex_action_wl_not_connected(rtwdev);
> else
> rtw_coex_action_wl_only(rtwdev);
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
This is kindly reminder. Could you pay some attention to this patch and
clarify if the rf4ce is actual for this moment and future?
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Kandybka
