rt2x00: Kconfig symbols RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X

0) Support for rt2800pci (or "the rt2860/rt3090 chipsets") was added in
v2.6.33 (three years ago). References to the related Kconfig symbols
RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X were introduced in that release. So were
checks for their macros (CONFIG_RALINK_RT288X and CONFIG_RALINK_RT305X).

1) The Kconfig symbols themselves were never added in mainline. So these
references and macros appear to be just markers for dead code in
mainline, as that code will not be built.

2) This was previously discussed in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/14/110 . The patch submitted in that
message (which would remove all the dead code at the time) did not get
applied.

3) What is the current status of the (out of tree) code that adds
RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X?


Paul Bolle

On 13 March 2013 09:59, Paul Bolle [off-list ref] wrote:

0) Support for rt2800pci (or "the rt2860/rt3090 chipsets") was added in
v2.6.33 (three years ago). References to the related Kconfig symbols
RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X were introduced in that release. So were
checks for their macros (CONFIG_RALINK_RT288X and CONFIG_RALINK_RT305X).

1) The Kconfig symbols themselves were never added in mainline. So these
references and macros appear to be just markers for dead code in
mainline, as that code will not be built.

2) This was previously discussed in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/14/110 . The patch submitted in that
message (which would remove all the dead code at the time) did not get
applied.

3) What is the current status of the (out of tree) code that adds
RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X?

They are now present in 3.9-rc1, see a0b0197c (more specifically
85639910..d3d2b420) :)

The actual accepted Kconfig symbol names are different though, so they
should be changed in rt2x00 to match them (SOC_RT288X and SOC_RT305X).


Jonas

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 10:51 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:

On 13 March 2013 09:59, Paul Bolle [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

3) What is the current status of the (out of tree) code that adds
RALINK_RT288X and RALINK_RT305X?

They are now present in 3.9-rc1, see a0b0197c (more specifically
85639910..d3d2b420) :)

Great.

The actual accepted Kconfig symbol names are different though, so they
should be changed in rt2x00 to match them (SOC_RT288X and SOC_RT305X).

Thanks. Note that I could not find an actual Kconfig symbol SOC_RT288X! 

Anyhow, I guess somebody has the (trivial) patch to convert
RALINK_RT...X and CONFIG_RALINK_RT...X to their SOC_* equivalents queued
for inclusion in v3.9-rcX. Is that correct?


Paul Bolle

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 13 March 2013 11:03, Paul Bolle [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 10:51 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:

quoted

The actual accepted Kconfig symbol names are different though, so they
should be changed in rt2x00 to match them (SOC_RT288X and SOC_RT305X).

Thanks. Note that I could not find an actual Kconfig symbol SOC_RT288X!

Ah, yes, the inital submission only included RT305X support, not
RT288X (and neither of the newer chips). These will come later.

Anyhow, I guess somebody has the (trivial) patch to convert
RALINK_RT...X and CONFIG_RALINK_RT...X to their SOC_* equivalents queued
for inclusion in v3.9-rcX. Is that correct?

Yes, that should be everything. John Crispin, anything missing from that?


Jonas

On 13/03/13 11:35, Jonas Gorski wrote:

On 13 March 2013 11:03, Paul Bolle[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 10:51 +0100, Jonas Gorski wrote:

quoted

The actual accepted Kconfig symbol names are different though, so they
should be changed in rt2x00 to match them (SOC_RT288X and SOC_RT305X).

Thanks. Note that I could not find an actual Kconfig symbol SOC_RT288X!

Ah, yes, the inital submission only included RT305X support, not
RT288X (and neither of the newer chips). These will come later.

quoted

Anyhow, I guess somebody has the (trivial) patch to convert
RALINK_RT...X and CONFIG_RALINK_RT...X to their SOC_* equivalents queued
for inclusion in v3.9-rcX. Is that correct?

Yes, that should be everything. John Crispin, anything missing from that?


Jonas

Hi,

I will look into this later this week.

John