RE: [PATCH rtw-next v7 4/6] wifi: rtw88: 8723b: add the RTL8723B chip driver

[Ping-Ke Shih]

Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > However, including rtw8703b.h from another chip driver is
> > >  already established, rtw8723cs.c includes it to reuse rtw8703b_hw_spec.
> > >
> > As I know, 8723CS and 8723B are mutual alias, no?
> 
> As far as I know, they are not. They are different chips.

fix typo.

8723CS and 8703B are mutual alias, no?

> 
> > >
> > > +/*
> > >  + * Row 20 (-6.0 dB) intentionally does not match the v5.2.17 vendor driver,
> > >
> > >  I really don't want to mention vendor driver here. If you really need it,
> > >  mention it in commit message or cover-letter.
> > >
> > >  + * which has 0x1c, 0x1a, 0x18, 0x12, 0x0e, 0x08 there. Every other row agrees.
> > >  + * The values below are what rtl8723be, the mainline driver for this same
> > >  + * chip, uses at the same index, and they are also what the vendor's own
> > >  + * cck_swing_table_ch1_ch13_92e and the staging rtl8723bs driver use. They
> > >  + * also track the 0.5 dB step of the surrounding rows: against row 32 as 0 dB,
> > >  + * 0x1b is within 0.06 of the ideal -6.0 dB value while 0x1c is 0.94 away,
> > >  + * the largest error anywhere in the table. Treat the vendor row as the
> > >  + * anomaly and do not "fix" this towards it.
> > >
> > >  And you have comments each row. Is it still need this block comment to explain?
> > >
> > >
> > >  I agree, will drop vendor reference and block comment.
> > >
> > I'm not sure if LLM writes this? LLM always write verbose comments for
> > each line it added. Just ask LLM to write self-explained code.
> 
> No, I wrote it because only 1 row differs from vendor driver and I
> thought I should mention it.

No worries. Just remove them.

> > >
> > > So I would
> > >  prefer to leave both tables as they are. If you want the unused fields listed as dummies
> > >  to pin the order, I can add them, but the sequence itself would not change.
> > >
> > I will think a bit how to align these messed tables.
> 
> I understand. I am gonna send v8 today, and do you think that v8 could
> be merged, so driver lands in 7.4 release?

I think only minor changes are needed, it is possible to get merged into 7.4
The messed tables can be ignored for now. 

Ping-Ke