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

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Amitkumar,

On 06/10/2016 12:26 PM, Amitkumar Karwar wrote:
> 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.
>

Agreed.

Kalle,

Patch 3/3 applies cleanly even after dropping patch 2/3.
Is that Ok for you or do you want me to re-resend a v3
with only patches 1/3 and 3/3?

> Regards,
> Amitkumar
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America