Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:34407 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751599AbcKORLU (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:11:20 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id g23so2027396wme.1 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC 06/12] ath10k: bmi: Added SOC reg read/write functions To: Michal Kazior References: <1479141222-8493-1-git-send-email-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> <1479141222-8493-7-git-send-email-erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> Cc: Kalle Valo , linux-wireless , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" From: Erik Stromdahl Message-ID: <5333e0c5-3449-5bcd-b467-3282d8b0a43b@gmail.com> (sfid-20161115_181123_983925_82E46997) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:11:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/15/2016 11:28 AM, Michal Kazior wrote: > On 14 November 2016 at 17:33, Erik Stromdahl wrote: >> Added functions implementing the following BMI commands: >> >> BMI_READ_SOC_REGISTER >> BMI_WRITE_SOC_REGISTER >> >> Reading and writing BMI registers is sometimes needed for >> SDIO chipsets. > > I didn't see ath10k_bmi_write_soc_reg nor ath10k_bmi_read_soc_reg > being used in your Patch 12. Is this patch really necessary? > > You are right, these functions are not used in patch 12. They are used in some other patches that was not included in this series (needs more cleanup before I can publish). I will remove them from the series. > [...] >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/bmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/bmi.c >> index 2872d34..1c378a2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/bmi.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/bmi.c >> @@ -97,7 +97,8 @@ int ath10k_bmi_read_memory(struct ath10k *ar, >> u32 rxlen; >> int ret; >> >> - ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_BMI, "bmi read address 0x%x length %d\n", >> + ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_BMI, >> + "bmi read memory address 0x%x length %d\n", >> address, length); >> >> if (ar->bmi.done_sent) { >> @@ -137,7 +138,8 @@ int ath10k_bmi_write_memory(struct ath10k *ar, >> u32 txlen; >> int ret; >> >> - ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_BMI, "bmi write address 0x%x length %d\n", >> + ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_BMI, >> + "bmi write memory address 0x%x length %d\n", >> address, length); >> > > These 2 hunks shouldn't be modified in this patch. If you want to do a > clean up this warrants a separate patch :) > > > Michał > Ok /Erik