Hi Luis,
On Tuesday 13 March 2012 01:46 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:46:04PM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
Hi Felix,
On Monday 12 March 2012 02:32 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
On 2012-03-12 6:57 AM, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
From: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan<mohammed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
not sure if these checks are previously avoided may be those revision of
chipsets are obselete ?
NACK. The extra checks that this patch adds have been intentionally
removed, since all earlier versions were never sold and thus do not need
to be considered. This simplifies the generated binary code.
IMHO i don't think this patch does anything wrong to deserve a NACK!
sometimes these optimizations make it tad difficult if we want to
quickly check with the HAL code.
"HAL" code from internal codebases need to change, not the other
way around. You have your priorities wrong. I support the NACK.
we have checks like this
case 1.#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))
case 2. #define AR_SREV_9485_OR_LATER(_ah) \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9485))
case 3. #define AR_SREV_9287_13_OR_LATER(_ah) \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion > AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) || \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion == AR_SREV_VERSION_9287) && \
((_ah)->hw_version.macRev >= AR_SREV_REVISION_9287_13)))
it made be bit confused and i was just adding some hardware related
changes, let me do accept i missed to see why the check for AR9280 is
like that. i just thought of making the changes in sync with the other
macros, also thats why sent an RFC too
Felix suggested a better solution would be
#define AR_SREV_9280_OR_LATER(_ah) \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))
instead of the older one (or) what my patch does
#define AR_SREV_9280_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \
(((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion >= AR_SREV_VERSION_9280))
and make corresponding changes in the hardware code.
thanks!
--
thanks,
shafi
--
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
