Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: core: remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
> > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 7 +------
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > index ce73ac7cf973..35e6a943c556 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > @@ -1669,11 +1669,6 @@ u8 rtw_antenna_select_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antenna, u8 enqueue)
> > >   	return res;
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > -static void power_saving_wk_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
> > > -{
> > > -	 rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >   #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P
> > >   u8 p2p_protocol_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, int intCmdType)
> > >   {
> > > @@ -1941,7 +1936,7 @@ u8 rtw_drvextra_cmd_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char *pbuf)
> > >   		dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > >   		break;
> > >   	case POWER_SAVING_CTRL_WK_CID:
> > > -		power_saving_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > > +		rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> > >   		break;
> > >   	case LPS_CTRL_WK_CID:
> > >   		lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(padapter, (u8)pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > > --
> > > 2.32.0
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Also does not apply to my tree.  Please rebase against my staging-next
> > branch and resend.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> > 
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help me to
> understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need to
> rebase against staging-next..!

Yes, you should.  When you are working on code that lots of other people
are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
stay on top of it.

thanks,

greg k-h