From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TVD_SUBJ_WIPE_DEBT,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E88AC742A1 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB2F206B8 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:05:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="DdpJQGZw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728830AbfGKWFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:05:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:33450 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726181AbfGKWFx (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 18:05:53 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id h10so7354469ljg.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TD2ywJIPeinUw5E9fc6j8ZzoAMc7kstGSVhGV8PrPAU=; b=DdpJQGZwMGFOHsPWBkpYWS/ovNyi70mFYHpyUvM4lg79BuSR5EhbQtAxS+zVdrMz99 EhMB7u8hzLuN5YzsA8SuTtMCOsWwd2RLZgTNHFV4QqYl5KtCKqjGkGkt6hGWiJ2hsEaN lX4YDRHaGijPIUffJhU20aeIp0PM9E0+MvL8Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TD2ywJIPeinUw5E9fc6j8ZzoAMc7kstGSVhGV8PrPAU=; b=GSNYL6pxQmRuEsgy3ap+yDVX0BUukx2u5gmqM/VLtgAvFYc2VbvxPXan/JuxGsEA6V B+y4kpuvH/NT3Z9mSt6OhtG3N+dvjQf6Dczby4LoMyPU3XUZSsRGsmVEOpG8+cW5G1w5 FTjIg09PyE84SN0PrB+gjHf3ZTF1m7tePgoRoZgxtabD8SJhhG7Uh7rZ5QUEk1Qu5DmE y4Bdc2J5X7muBWkr7pNP+inmYDfR6/b6haggQM7zSdzEi56vd29Ss7SQw+M8HfOrTD6n b2RDzAA1ul2yhQn3T2Gop6BIMK6hrPvwpuEy2QmlWg0YBTqbxUfYzmV25duus31BeNYh xvNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU9QfRikgIoLXFxZ56OxakDOppjOhdOHSHUaw0gZGB2vi2NaVHZ FjFTgEskH/z5QwlGtoxpDAUk3RJGShk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzclfdtwUBeN9FGx70otpQpqWQ0Wj9syxweNwuc7XiM4YU2mYdRP3Q4qbvXeoonbMiyPYoOjw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9758:: with SMTP id f24mr3921170ljj.58.1562882750674; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (mail-lj1-f177.google.com. [209.85.208.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13sm873328lfu.37.2019.07.11.15.05.49 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id h10so7354402ljg.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2b01:: with SMTP id q1mr3797286lje.27.1562882749331; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1559116487-5244-1-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com> <1559116487-5244-10-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com> In-Reply-To: <1559116487-5244-10-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com> From: Brian Norris Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:05:37 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] rtw88: remove all RTW_MAX_POWER_INDEX macro To: Tony Chuang Cc: Kalle Valo , linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org I realize this is already upstream, but I thought I'd ask here, since I was going back and reviewing some of this: On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:55 AM wrote: > > From: Tzu-En Huang > > Since this macro definition has different values in different chipset, > the current defined macro value is for 8822b. This will cause the > settings of 8822c be incorrect. ^^ Is this actually correct, that 8822b was correct and 8822c was wrong? Because I see RTW_MAX_POWER_INDEX used to be defined as 0x7f, and rtw8822c_hw_spec.max_power_index also appears to be 0x7f. Which would sound like 8822b (*b*, not c) was wrong, as it lists 0x3f. Anyway, I'm going to assume you got the change right, and you just mis-spoke in the description. Regards, Brian > Remove RTW_MAX_POWER_INDEX and use max_power_index in struct rtw_chip_info > to make sure the value of different chipset is right. > > Signed-off-by: Tzu-En Huang > Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang