2008-10-03 20:48:49

by Harvey Harrison

Subject: [PATCH 2/8] b43: remove remaining b43_radio_{read|write}16 from main.c

The 16 is not necessary anymore and is defnined to read/write.

Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
index 6df9b65..cc1f4a9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
@@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
b43_write16(dev, 0x0502, 0x0030);

if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
- b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
+ b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
for (i = 0x00; i < max_loop; i++) {
value = b43_read16(dev, 0x050E);
if (value & 0x0080)
@@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
udelay(10);
}
if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
- b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);
+ b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);

write_unlock(&wl->tx_lock);
spin_unlock_irq(&wl->irq_lock);
--
1.6.0.2.471.g47a76

2008-10-04 01:36:41

by Larry Finger

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] b43: remove remaining b43_radio_{read|write}16 from main.c

Harvey Harrison wrote:
> The 16 is not necessary anymore and is defnined to read/write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> index 6df9b65..cc1f4a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
> b43_write16(dev, 0x0502, 0x0030);
>
> if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
> - b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
> + b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
> for (i = 0x00; i < max_loop; i++) {
> value = b43_read16(dev, 0x050E);
> if (value & 0x0080)
> @@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
> udelay(10);
> }
> if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
> - b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);
> + b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);
>
> write_unlock(&wl->tx_lock);
> spin_unlock_irq(&wl->irq_lock);

NACK. The two extra characters are absolutely harmless, but they do
contain useful information. In addition, who knows if a future
Broadcom device starts using 32-bit read/writes.

Larry

2008-10-04 08:48:21

by Michael Büsch

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] b43: remove remaining b43_radio_{read|write}16 from main.c

On Saturday 04 October 2008 03:36:33 Larry Finger wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > The 16 is not necessary anymore and is defnined to read/write.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> > index 6df9b65..cc1f4a9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c
> > @@ -789,7 +789,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
> > b43_write16(dev, 0x0502, 0x0030);
> >
> > if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
> > - b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
> > + b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0017);
> > for (i = 0x00; i < max_loop; i++) {
> > value = b43_read16(dev, 0x050E);
> > if (value & 0x0080)
> > @@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev)
> > udelay(10);
> > }
> > if (phy->radio_ver == 0x2050 && phy->radio_rev <= 0x5)
> > - b43_radio_write16(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);
> > + b43_radio_write(dev, 0x0051, 0x0037);
> >
> > write_unlock(&wl->tx_lock);
> > spin_unlock_irq(&wl->irq_lock);
>
> NACK. The two extra characters are absolutely harmless, but they do
> contain useful information. In addition, who knows if a future
> Broadcom device starts using 32-bit read/writes.

Ok, there are valid reasons for it, there are valid reasons against it...

Can we just agree now that we're not going to apply _any_ cleanups to the
PHY code, please? (So I revoke my mail from Sat Oct 4 00:35:35 2008)

Actual bugfixes are welcome, of course.

--
Greetings Michael.