Re: [PATCH 4/9] rt2x00: Remove rt2800 version constants.

[Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 16:54, Ivo Van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 08:32, Ivo van Doorn <ivdoorn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 08 April 2010, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
>>>> The rt2800 version constants are inconsistent, and the version number don't
>>>> mean a lot of things anyway. Use the literal values in the code instead of
>>>> some sort of fabricated version name macro.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Perhaps a more elegant way of using and defining needs to be found.
>>> But at least the defined show what the purpose for the values is
>>> rather then having magical values spread around the code.
>>
>> Maybe something like:
>>
>> #define RTDEV_IS_RT2883_R1(dev) (rt2x00_rt(dev, RT2883) && \
>>                                                   rt2x00_rev(dev) < 0x0300)
>
> I considered this as well, but we have many checks which either do
>    rt2x00_rev() < 0xffff
> but also
>    rt2x00_ref() == 0xffff

I assume that there are certain ranges of revisions that correspond to
certain chips with certain ... features. So, you could have:

#define RTDEV_IS_RT2883_R1(dev) (rt2x00_rt(dev, RT2883) && \
                                                  rt2x00_rev(dev) < 0x0300)

for the original chip, then

#define RTDEV_IS_RT2883_R2(dev) (rt2x00_rt(dev, RT2883) && \
                                                  rt2x00_rev(dev) >= 0x0300 && \
                                                  rt2x00_rev(dev) < 0x1000)

for the troubled second version and

#define RTDEV_IS_RT2883_R3(dev) (rt2x00_rt(dev, RT2883) && \
                                                  rt2x00_rev(dev) >= 0x1000)

as a catch all for newer chips.

Thanks,

-- 

Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/