Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org C52BE602B7
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To:     Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtw88: use txpwr_lmt_cfg_pair struct, not arrays
References: <20190713013232.215138-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
        <20190724112304.7DDF960909@smtp.codeaurora.org>
        <F7CD281DE3E379468C6D07993EA72F84D187DDAE@RTITMBSVM04.realtek.com.tw>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:59:40 +0300
In-Reply-To: <F7CD281DE3E379468C6D07993EA72F84D187DDAE@RTITMBSVM04.realtek.com.tw>
        (Tony Chuang's message of "Thu, 25 Jul 2019 02:26:45 +0000")
Message-ID: <87ef2ezmb7.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com> writes:

>> Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > We're just trusting that these tables are of the right dimensions, when
>> > we could do better by just using the struct directly. Let's expose the
>> > struct txpwr_lmt_cfg_pair instead.
>> >
>> > The table changes were made by using some Vim macros, so that should
>> > help prevent any translation mistakes along the way.
>> >
>> > Remaining work: get the 'void *data' out of the generic struct
>> > rtw_table; all of these tables really deserve to be their own data
>> > structure, with proper type fields.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
>> 
>> To me this looks like a clear improvement and I'm inclined to apply it. Tony,
>> what do you think?
>
> I think it indeed is better to use struct instead of arrays to access the table.
> But what I am trying to do is to figure a way to write a proper struct for
> radio_[ab] tables. Since the parsing logic is more complicated than others.
>
> Once I finished them, I will send a patch to change the tables.

Are you saying that your patch will also clean up these txpwr tables and
I should drop this patch? Or can I apply this?

-- 
Kalle Valo