Hello Amitkumar, On 06/10/2016 12:26 PM, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > Hi Kalle/Javier, > >> From: Javier Martinez Canillas [mailto:jav...@osg.samsung.com] >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 8:07 PM >> To: Kalle Valo >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Julian Calaby; Shengzhen Li; Enric >> Balletbo i Serra; Amitkumar Karwar; net...@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> wirel...@vger.kernel.org; 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 <jav...@osg.samsung.com> writes: >>> >>>> From: Shengzhen Li <s...@marvell.com> >>>> >>>> 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 <s...@marvell.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akar...@marvell.com> >>>> [javier: update the subject line and commit message] >>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <jav...@osg.samsung.com> >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> --- 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
