Pkshih [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 10:32 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:

quoted

[off-list ref] writes:
=20

quoted

From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>

There are two or three physical antenna in 8822be WiFi modules, so btc=

oex

quoted

quoted

introduce two coex files to handle these two cases.

Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
---
=C2=A0=C2=A0.../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b1ant.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=

=C2=A0=C2=A0| 5327 +++++++++++++++++++

quoted

quoted

=C2=A0=C2=A0.../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b1ant.h=C2=A0=C2=A0=

=C2=A0=C2=A0|=C2=A0=C2=A0413 ++

quoted

quoted

=C2=A0=C2=A0.../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b2ant.c=C2=A0=C2=A0=

=C2=A0=C2=A0| 5370 ++++++++++++++++++++

quoted

quoted

=C2=A0=C2=A0.../realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8822b2ant.h=C2=A0=C2=A0=

=C2=A0=C2=A0|=C2=A0=C2=A0434 ++

quoted

quoted

=C2=A0=C2=A04 files changed, 11544 insertions(+)

=20
Huge patches like this are pain to review. I'm going to split this into
two sets, patches 1-11 and patches 12-15.
=20

Do I need to split the four files into four patches?

At least two patches would make it a bit less painful, like one patch
for halbtc8822b1ant.[c|h] and the other for halbtc8822b2ant.[c|h].

quoted

quoted

+static struct coex_dm_8822b_1ant	glcoex_dm_8822b_1ant;
+static struct coex_dm_8822b_1ant	*coex_dm =3D &glcoex_dm_8822b_1ant;
+static struct coex_sta_8822b_1ant	glcoex_sta_8822b_1ant;
+static struct coex_sta_8822b_1ant	*coex_sta =3D &glcoex_sta_8822b_1an=

t;

quoted

quoted

+static struct rfe_type_8822b_1ant	gl_rfe_type_8822b_1ant;
+static struct rfe_type_8822b_1ant	*rfe_type =3D &gl_rfe_type_8822b_1a=

nt;

quoted

quoted

+
+static const char *const glbt_info_src_8822b_1ant[] =3D {
+	"BT Info[wifi fw]",
+	"BT Info[bt rsp]",
+	"BT Info[bt auto report]",
+};
+
+static u32 glcoex_ver_date_8822b_1ant =3D 20180112;
+static u32 glcoex_ver_8822b_1ant =3D 0x59;
+static u32 glcoex_ver_btdesired_8822b_1ant =3D 0x56;

=20
Having static variables like this means that this will not work if there
are two or more device per host, right? IIRC we discussed this before,
so what's the plan to solve that?=C2=A0
=20
In upstream drivers there should not be artificial limitations like one
device per host. Is that even checked anywhere or will it just be buggy
if there are more than one device?
=20

The variables=C2=A0coex_dm/coex_sta/rfe_type should move to struct btcoex=

ist, but

other btcoex files also use this style. So, my plan is to keep static var=

iables

in this patch, and use another patch to remove all of them. Since this ta=

kes

a little time to discuss with our btcoex guys, could I send patches
12-15 first?

That sounds like a good plan to me.

The version related variables are used to display in debug message, so th=

ey

work on multiple devices.=C2=A0

Ok.

--=20
Kalle Valo