On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 08:32, Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thursday 08 April 2010, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>>> The rt2800 version constants are inconsistent, and the version number don't
>>> mean a lot of things anyway. Use the literal values in the code instead of
>>> some sort of fabricated version name macro.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Perhaps a more elegant way of using and defining needs to be found.
>> But at least the defined show what the purpose for the values is
>> rather then having magical values spread around the code.
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> #define RTDEV_IS_RT2883_R1(dev) (rt2x00_rt(dev, RT2883) && \
> rt2x00_rev(dev) < 0x0300)
I considered this as well, but we have many checks which either do
rt2x00_rev() < 0xffff
but also
rt2x00_ref() == 0xffff
Ivo
--
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
