On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:52:44AM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > I don't like the comparison against 0x3000. Maybe you should invert the > > conditions and test for the chipsets for which this does not have to be > > applied (e.g. !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2860) && !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, > > RT2872). > Not sure about that. Excluding old chips would be opposite to what > legacy driver is doing. > > Legacy driver uses a long list of almost all > 0x3000 devices here. It > leaves out only RT3070, RT3352 and RT5350 but those chips are not used > on PCIe. The same list is later used throughout PCIe power management > code. I can only guess that from 0x3000 on PCIe devices gained some > kind of new power management capabilities. > > It might be worth adding a macro which will check for all those devices > (rt2800pci_has_pcie_ps or sth) later on, when implementing support for > that PCIe PS, but for now I thought check against 0x3000 will be > equally good. Leaving > 0x3000 check, but wrap it in a macro with a descriptive name, which could tell what this check actually mean, would be most appreciated change IMHO. BTW: if you plan to add ASPM quirks from vendor driver to rt2x00, don't do it. ASPM should be configured by pci core. Stanislaw -- 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
