Return-path: Received: from mail.osadl.at ([92.243.35.153]:37096 "EHLO mail.osadl.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753157AbcJ3LLC (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2016 07:11:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:03:12 +0000 From: Nicholas Mc Guire To: Larry Finger Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RFC if==else in halbtc8723b1ant.c Message-ID: <20161030110312.GA26326@osadl.at> (sfid-20161030_121109_724191_F8AADCDF) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi ! in your commit f5b586909581 ("rtlwifi: btcoexist: Modify driver to support BT coexistence in rtl8723be") you introduced a if/else where both branches are the same but the comment in the else branch suggests that this might be unintended. from code review only I can?t say what the intent is. /drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8723b1ant.c:halbtc8723b1ant_action_wifi_connected_bt_acl_busy() 1838 if ((bt_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_HIGH) || 1839 (bt_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_STAY_HIGH)) { 1840 halbtc8723b1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1841 true, 14); 1842 coex_dm->auto_tdma_adjust = false; 1843 } else { /*for low BT RSSI*/ 1844 halbtc8723b1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1845 true, 14); 1846 coex_dm->auto_tdma_adjust = false; 1847 } basically the same construct is also in halbtc8723b1ant_run_coexist_mechanism() 2213 if ((wifi_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_HIGH) || 2214 (wifi_rssi_state == BTC_RSSI_STATE_STAY_HIGH)) { 2215 halbtc8723b1ant_limited_tx(btcoexist, 2216 NORMAL_EXEC, 2217 1, 1, 1, 1); 2218 } else { 2219 halbtc8723b1ant_limited_tx(btcoexist, 2220 NORMAL_EXEC, 2221 1, 1, 1, 1); 2222 } where the if condition is the same so the else may also only apply to the low BT RSSI - and the if and else are again the same - if this is intended or not is not clear. If this is intended it should have appropriate comments. thx! hofrat