2012-06-16 21:36:38

by Xose Vazquez Perez

Subject: [PATCH] wireless: rt2x00: rt2800: remove unsupported rf and chips

removed, no support for:

RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)

RT3593
RT3883

Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h | 6 ------
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h | 2 --
2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
index 9348521..b483c23 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
@@ -47,10 +47,7 @@
* RF3021 2.4G 1T2R
* RF3022 2.4G 2T2R
* RF3052 2.4G/5G 2T2R
- * RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
* RF3320 2.4G 1T1R(RT3350/RT3370/RT3390)
- * RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
- * RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)
* RF5370 2.4G 1T1R
* RF5390 2.4G 1T1R
*/
@@ -63,10 +60,7 @@
#define RF3021 0x0007
#define RF3022 0x0008
#define RF3052 0x0009
-#define RF2853 0x000a
#define RF3320 0x000b
-#define RF3322 0x000c
-#define RF3053 0x000d
#define RF5370 0x5370
#define RF5372 0x5372
#define RF5390 0x5390
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
index 8f75402..0395881 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
@@ -189,8 +189,6 @@ struct rt2x00_chip {
#define RT3090 0x3090 /* 2.4GHz PCIe */
#define RT3390 0x3390
#define RT3572 0x3572
-#define RT3593 0x3593
-#define RT3883 0x3883 /* WSOC */
#define RT5390 0x5390 /* 2.4GHz */
#define RT5392 0x5392 /* 2.4GHz */

--
1.7.10.4

2012-06-18 15:38:58

by Stanislaw Gruszka

Subject: Re: [rt2x00-users] [PATCH] wireless: rt2x00: rt2800: remove unsupported rf and chips

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:01:54AM +0200, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> Hi Xose,
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > removed, no support for:
> >
> > RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
> > RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
> > RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)
> >
> > RT3593
> > RT3883
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
>
> I don't mind removing the RT chipset definitions, but I would like to
> retain the RF chipset definitions. Even
> though these definitions are not used in the code, the do represent
> values we could see from devices, so
> I consider the list to be documentation as well.

Perhaps we can comment them out, as compromise :-)

Stanislaw

2012-06-18 09:01:56

by Gertjan van Wingerde

Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: rt2x00: rt2800: remove unsupported rf and chips

Hi Xose,

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
<[email protected]> wrote:
> removed, no support for:
>
> RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
> RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
> RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)
>
> RT3593
> RT3883
>
> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>

I don't mind removing the RT chipset definitions, but I would like to
retain the RF chipset definitions. Even
though these definitions are not used in the code, the do represent
values we could see from devices, so
I consider the list to be documentation as well.

> ---
> ?drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h | ? ?6 ------
> ?drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h | ? ?2 --
> ?2 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
> index 9348521..b483c23 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800.h
> @@ -47,10 +47,7 @@
> ?* RF3021 2.4G 1T2R
> ?* RF3022 2.4G 2T2R
> ?* RF3052 2.4G/5G 2T2R
> - * RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
> ?* RF3320 2.4G 1T1R(RT3350/RT3370/RT3390)
> - * RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
> - * RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)
> ?* RF5370 2.4G 1T1R
> ?* RF5390 2.4G 1T1R
> ?*/
> @@ -63,10 +60,7 @@
> ?#define RF3021 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x0007
> ?#define RF3022 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x0008
> ?#define RF3052 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x0009
> -#define RF2853 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x000a
> ?#define RF3320 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x000b
> -#define RF3322 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x000c
> -#define RF3053 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x000d
> ?#define RF5370 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x5370
> ?#define RF5372 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x5372
> ?#define RF5390 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x5390
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
> index 8f75402..0395881 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h
> @@ -189,8 +189,6 @@ struct rt2x00_chip {
> ?#define RT3090 ? ? ? ? 0x3090 ?/* 2.4GHz PCIe */
> ?#define RT3390 ? ? ? ? 0x3390
> ?#define RT3572 ? ? ? ? 0x3572
> -#define RT3593 ? ? ? ? 0x3593
> -#define RT3883 ? ? ? ? 0x3883 ?/* WSOC */
> ?#define RT5390 ? ? ? ? 0x5390 ?/* 2.4GHz */
> ?#define RT5392 ? ? ? ? 0x5392 ?/* 2.4GHz */
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>



--
---
Gertjan

2012-06-18 15:41:51

by Ivo Van Doorn

Subject: Re: [rt2x00-users] [PATCH] wireless: rt2x00: rt2800: remove unsupported rf and chips

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:01:54AM +0200, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>> Hi Xose,
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > removed, no support for:
>> >
>> > RF2853 2.4G/5G 3T3R
>> > RF3322 2.4G 2T2R(RT3352/RT3371/RT3372/RT3391/RT3392)
>> > RF3053 2.4G/5G 3T3R(RT3883/RT3563/RT3573/RT3593/RT3662)
>> >
>> > RT3593
>> > RT3883
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
>>
>> I don't mind removing the RT chipset definitions, but I would like to
>> retain the RF chipset definitions. Even
>> though these definitions are not used in the code, the do represent
>> values we could see from devices, so
>> I consider the list to be documentation as well.
>
> Perhaps we can comment them out, as compromise :-)

Personally I don't see the point. In my opinion the defines can all
stay as they are.
They are all defines which are clearly related to the chipsets
themselves, so they are
useful, and the fact that they are currently unused shouldn't mean
they should be
deleted.

Ivo