[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFBinCAzmgwRAzAbXM17nmPw0bo9Mzx6gQQQrR3tPDb+n2jDHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 11:49:55 +0100
From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@...il.com>,
Nitin Gupta <nitin.gupta981@...il.com>,
Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/19] rtw88: mac: Add support for SDIO specifics
in the power on sequence
Hi Ping-Ke,
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 2:15 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com> wrote:
[...]
> > + if (rtw_sdio_is_sdio30_supported(rtwdev))
> > + rtw_write8_set(rtwdev, REG_HCI_OPT_CTRL + 2, BIT(2));
>
> BIT_USB_LPM_ACT_EN BIT(10) // reg_addr +2, so bit >> 8
The ones above are clear to me, thank you.
But for this one I have a question: don't we need BIT(18) for this one
and then bit >> 16?
reg_addr + 0: bits 0..7
reg_addr + 1: bits 8..15
reg_addr + 2: bits 16..23
Best regards,
Martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists