On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@xxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:47:37 +0100 Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@xxxxx> wrote:
>> > rt2800pci_set_state was introduced to group requests preceded with
>> > common introduction. As that introduction is no longer used
>> > rt2800pci_set_state can be removed.
>> >
>> > Note that this patch changes behaviour for STATE_DEEP_SLEEP and
>> > STATE_STANDBY, but those states are not used in rt2800 anyway.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@xxxxx>
>>
>> I know this patch has been out there for a while, but I only now have
>> taken a good look at it.
>> First of all, I think that it would have been easy to not change the
>> behaviour for STATE_DEEP_SLEEP
>> and STATE_STANDBY, even though these are not used in rt2800. They can
>> simply be put as their
>> own cases in the switch statement in which nothing is done.
>
> True, I have decided to make the change because:
> 1) I couldn't find any reason to treat those states differently than
> normal SLEEP;
> 2) rt61pci and rt2500pci treats them equally;
> 3) the differentiation was introduced by Jay in 7f6e144f and the change
> looks like it may have not been 100% intentional. At least my newbie
> mind is telling me that. No one asked about it at the time and commit
> message also doesn't explain this change.
>
> Please let me know if this reasoning makes any sense to you.
OK. Looking at this closer it actually looks like that these two
states are not used at
all in rt2x00. So, I guess I can be fine with this.
>
>> Also some comments to the actual code below.
>>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c | 38 ++++++++++--------------------
>> > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
>> > index 6ad6929..6ab4637 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c
>> > @@ -517,23 +517,6 @@ static void rt2800pci_disable_radio(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static int rt2800pci_set_state(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
>> > - enum dev_state state)
>> > -{
>> > - if (state == STATE_AWAKE) {
>> > - rt2800_mcu_request(rt2x00dev, MCU_WAKEUP, TOKEN_WAKUP, 0, 0x02);
>> > - rt2800pci_mcu_status(rt2x00dev, TOKEN_WAKUP);
>> > - } else if (state == STATE_SLEEP) {
>> > - rt2x00pci_register_write(rt2x00dev, H2M_MAILBOX_STATUS,
>> > - 0xffffffff);
>> > - rt2x00pci_register_write(rt2x00dev, H2M_MAILBOX_CID,
>> > - 0xffffffff);
>> > - rt2800_mcu_request(rt2x00dev, MCU_SLEEP, 0x01, 0xff, 0x01);
>> > - }
>> > -
>> > - return 0;
>> > -}
>> > -
>> > static int rt2800pci_set_device_state(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
>> > enum dev_state state)
>> > {
>> > @@ -546,7 +529,7 @@ static int rt2800pci_set_device_state(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
>> > * to be woken up. After that it needs a bit of time
>> > * to be fully awake and then the radio can be enabled.
>> > */
>> > - rt2800pci_set_state(rt2x00dev, STATE_AWAKE);
>> > + rt2800pci_set_device_state(rt2x00dev, STATE_AWAKE);
>> > msleep(1);
>> > retval = rt2800pci_enable_radio(rt2x00dev);
>> > break;
>>
>> I don't like this recursive call, but this is removed in patch 4, so I
>> don't mind it here.
>>
>> > @@ -556,17 +539,22 @@ static int rt2800pci_set_device_state(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev,
>> > * be put to sleep for powersaving.
>> > */
>> > rt2800pci_disable_radio(rt2x00dev);
>> > - rt2800pci_set_state(rt2x00dev, STATE_SLEEP);
>> > - break;
>> > - case STATE_RADIO_IRQ_ON:
>> > - case STATE_RADIO_IRQ_OFF:
>> > - rt2800pci_toggle_irq(rt2x00dev, state);
>> > - break;
>> > + /* fall through */
>>
>> I don't really like this falling through, which is just there out of
>> convenience, as the states have
>> some common code. However, in reality these states have not a lot in
>> common, so just a bit
>> of code duplication would have been better here, IMHO.
>
> Ok, I will change that and perhaps put that "duplicated" code into
> rt2800pci_disable_radio to keep switch statement short.
>
Fine with me. Maybe the same could be done with respect to the new code
and rt2800pci_enable_radio.
---
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
