From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:4957 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933234Ab0DHU5K (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 16:57:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 002/102] ath9k_hw: add silicon revision macros for AR9300 From: Pavel Roskin To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau In-Reply-To: <1270754858-26266-3-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> References: <1270754858-26266-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <1270754858-26266-3-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:57:08 -0400 Message-Id: <1270760228.16012.8.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:25 -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > +#define AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(_ah) \ > + (((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion > AR_SREV_VERSION_9300) || \ > + (((_ah)->hw_version.macVersion == AR_SREV_VERSION_9300) && \ > + ((_ah)->hw_version.macRev >= AR_SREV_REVISION_9300_20))) I wonder if AR_SREV_9300_OR_LATER would be a better name, considering that AR9300 1.0 won't ever be supported. For the same reason, the revision check seems excessive. Someone seeing AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER in the code could assume that it won't match devices that come after AR9300, but only devices of version AR9300 and revision 2.0 and newer. AR_SREV_9300_OR_LATER won't have that ambiguity. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin