RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] mwifiex: move .get_tx_power logic to station ioctl file

[Amitkumar Karwar]

Hi Kalle/Javier,

> From: Javier Martinez Canillas [mailto:javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 8:07 PM
> To: Kalle Valo
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Julian Calaby; Shengzhen Li; Enric
> Balletbo i Serra; Amitkumar Karwar; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Nishant Sarmukadam
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mwifiex: move .get_tx_power logic to station
> ioctl file
> 
> Hello Kalle,
> 
> On 06/10/2016 10:30 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> From: Shengzhen Li <szli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Most cfg80211 operations are just a wrappers to functions defined in
> >> the sta_ioctl.c file, so for consistency move the .get_tx_power logic
> there.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shengzhen Li <szli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> [javier: update the subject line and commit message]
> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cfg80211.c
> >> @@ -385,18 +385,10 @@ mwifiex_cfg80211_get_tx_power(struct wiphy
> *wiphy,
> >>  			      int *dbm)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter =
> mwifiex_cfg80211_get_adapter(wiphy);
> >> -	struct mwifiex_private *priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter,
> >> -							MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY);
> >> -	int ret = mwifiex_send_cmd(priv, HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR,
> >> -				   HostCmd_ACT_GEN_GET, 0, NULL, true);
> >> -
> >> -	if (ret < 0)
> >> -		return ret;
> >> -
> >> -	/* tx_power_level is set in HostCmd_CMD_RF_TX_PWR command handler
> */
> >> -	*dbm = priv->tx_power_level;
> >> +	struct mwifiex_private *priv;
> >>
> >> -	return 0;
> >> +	priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY);
> >> +	return mwifiex_get_tx_power(priv, dbm);
> >>  }
> >
> > So in patch 1 you added the patch and in patch 2 you move it to a
> > different location? That doesn't make any sense, can't you just fold
> > the two patches into one so that the function is added only once.
> >
> 
> I posted this patch in v1 but then Amitkumar shared his patch with me
> that was very similar to mine, only that the logic was in a different
> location.
> 
> So I included his delta as a separate patch to try keeping attribution
> as best as possible.
> 

This patch (2/3) is only for code rearrangement and adds an unnecessary wrapper function. We can simply drop the patch.

Regards,
Amitkumar