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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200206032801.25835-1-yhchuang@realtek.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200206032801.25835-1-yhchuang@realtek.com>
From:   Chris Chiu <chiu@endlessm.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:11:06 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB4CAwe_uiCitczp2KYQ-H5gAVE_fPGr8GzRqnKAoXSxVw9meQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rtw88: Fix incorrect beamformee role setting
To:     Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:28 AM <yhchuang@realtek.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tzu-En Huang <tehuang@realtek.com>
>
> In associating and configuring beamformee, bfee->role is not
> correctly set before rtw_chip_ops::config_bfee().
> Fix it by setting it correctly.
>
> Fixes: 0bd9557341b7 ("rtw88: Enable 802.11ac beamformee support")
> Signed-off-by: Tzu-En Huang <tehuang@realtek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2
>   * cannot put bfee->role = RTW_BFEE_NONE after out_unlock
>     put it enclosed by else
>
>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c
> index fda771d23f71..073c754e9e70 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c
> @@ -99,10 +98,11 @@ void rtw_bf_assoc(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>                 }
>
>                 chip->ops->config_bfee(rtwdev, rtwvif, bfee, true);
> +       } else {
> +               bfee->role = RTW_BFEE_NONE;
>         }
>

Do we really need this `else` section? The bfee->role is only for
`config_bfee`, right? If we don't
need to config_bfee for RTW_BFEE_NONE, then we don't need the `else` part.

Chris

>  out_unlock:
> -       bfee->role = bfee_role;
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>