[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9mczu4h.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 15:17:02 +0300
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Cc: yhchuang@...ltek.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org (open list:REALTEK WIRELESS DRIVER
(rtw88)), netdev@...r.kernel.org (open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS),
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtw88: Add delay on polling h2c command status bit
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com> writes:
> On some systems we can constanly see rtw88 complains:
> [39584.721375] rtw_pci 0000:03:00.0: failed to send h2c command
>
> Increase interval of each check to wait the status bit really changes.
>
> While at it, add some helpers so we can use standarized
> readx_poll_timeout() macro.
One logical change per patch, please.
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/hci.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/hci.h
> @@ -253,6 +253,10 @@ rtw_write8_mask(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u32 addr, u32 mask, u8 data)
> rtw_write8(rtwdev, addr, set);
> }
>
> +#define rr8(addr) rtw_read8(rtwdev, addr)
> +#define rr16(addr) rtw_read16(rtwdev, addr)
> +#define rr32(addr) rtw_read32(rtwdev, addr)
For me these macros reduce code readability, not improve anything. They
hide the use of rtwdev variable, which is evil, and a name like rr8() is
just way too vague. Please keep the original function names as is.
--
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
Powered by blists - more mailing lists