Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:57663 "EHLO mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758719Ab0DBG5s (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Apr 2010 02:57:48 -0400 Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so1326033bwz.21 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:57:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4BB513AA.8020209@gmail.com> References: <4BB513AA.8020209@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:57:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] rt2x00: remove MCU requests for SoC platforms From: Ivo Van Doorn To: Gertjan van Wingerde Cc: Luis Correia , linux-wireless , rt2x00 Users List , "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > Luis, > > On 04/01/10 23:14, Luis Correia wrote: >> The ralink SoC platforms do not have an MCU. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luis Correia > > I know Ivo already acked the v2 version of the patch, but isn't the > addition of a driver flag a bit overkill? > > We have the test on whether the platform is SOC w.r.t. MCU requests > in 2 places, and both of them are in rt2800 code. I do not really see > a need to clutter the global rt2x00 space with a rt2800 specific flag, > which is only used in rt2800 code. I suggested the new flag to Luis. I wonder if a case exists where the driver has no firmware but does need MCU access. I already considered it strange when Ralink released a chip without firmware while other revisions did need it. If this combination would be extremely unlikely, then we can indeed remove the flag. Ivo