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 40B5060A60
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To:     Wen Gong <wgong@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc:     Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ath10k\@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] ath10k: improve throughout of tcp/udp TX/RX of sdio
References: <1567679893-14029-1-git-send-email-wgong@codeaurora.org>
        <87tv9hikwe.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
        <87d0g5h07v.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
        <1568346854209.29270@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:44:59 +0300
In-Reply-To: <1568346854209.29270@qti.qualcomm.com> (Wen Gong's message of
        "Fri, 13 Sep 2019 03:54:14 +0000")
Message-ID: <87tv97b0hg.fsf@codeaurora.org>
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

Wen Gong <wgong@qti.qualcomm.com> writes:

>>>> The bottleneck of throughout on sdio chip is the bus bandwidth, to the
>>>>patches are all to increase the use ratio of sdio bus.
>
>>> I tried to apply patches 2-8, patch 2 had a conflict due to my changes
>>> and patch 8 didn't apply at all. Also I saw few warnings with the
>>> patches I was able to test:
>
> Hi kalle,
>
> i see some warning is from patch "ath10k: add fw coredump for sdio when firmware assert"
> and this patch also have change in sdio.c, so maybe it will have
> conflict with the 8 patches.
>
> patch 8 didn't apply at all, is it means each change of the patch is
> conflict?

Patches 1-7 applied fine, but patch 8 didn't apply. I didn't investigate
what was the conflict.

> I used command to check each patch.
> perl ~/opensource/checkpatch.pl --strict --no-tree
> --max-line-length=90 --show-types --ignore CONST_STRUCT ./*
>
> I found it not check Wunused-but-set-variable.

checkpatch only checks style issues, unused-but-set-variable is a
warning from GCC.

I use ath10k-check script to check all ath10k patches:

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/codingstyle#checking_code

And I use latest GCC and sparse with that. crosstool is a simple way to
install a relatively new version of GCC for kernel compilation:

https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/

-- 
Kalle Valo