On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
<bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] rt2800pci: add rt2800_register_[read,write]() wrappers
>
> Part of preparations for later code unification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c | 479 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.h | 21 +
> 2 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 239 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(nohwcrypt, "Disable har
> /*
> * Register access.
> * All access to the CSR registers will go through the methods
> - * rt2x00pci_register_read and rt2x00pci_register_write.
> + * rt2800_register_read and rt2800_register_write.
> * BBP and RF register require indirect register access,
> * and use the CSR registers BBPCSR and RFCSR to achieve this.
> * These indirect registers work with busy bits,
> @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(nohwcrypt, "Disable har
> * between each attampt. When the busy bit is still set at that time,
> * the access attempt is considered to have failed,
> * and we will print an error.
> + * The _lock versions must be used if you already hold the csr_mutex
> */
> #define WAIT_FOR_BBP(__dev, __reg) \
> rt2x00pci_regbusy_read((__dev), BBP_CSR_CFG, BBP_CSR_CFG_BUSY, (__reg))
The change to the _lock variant seems a bit odd. See below.
<snip>
> Index: b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.h
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.h
> @@ -27,6 +27,27 @@
> #ifndef RT2800PCI_H
> #define RT2800PCI_H
>
> +static inline void rt2800_register_read(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
> + const unsigned int offset,
> + u32 *value)
> +{
> + rt2x00pci_register_read(rt2x00dev, offset, value);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rt2800_register_write(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
> + const unsigned int offset,
> + u32 value)
> +{
> + rt2x00pci_register_write(rt2x00dev, offset, value);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rt2800_register_write_lock(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
> + const unsigned int offset,
> + u32 value)
> +{
> + rt2x00pci_register_write(rt2x00dev, offset, value);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * RF chip defines.
> *
Can we add a comment to the _lock variant explaining that this one
technically isn't
needed, but is present for alignment purposes with rt2800usb?
Otherwise this looks a bit odd, and may confuse people.
---
Gertjan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
