Re: [PATCH v20 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices

Kari Argillander [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:00:55AM +0100, Srinivasan Raju wrote:

quoted

This driver implementation has been based on the zd1211rw driver

Driver is based on 802.11 softMAC Architecture and uses
native 802.11 for configuration and management

The driver is compiled and tested in ARM, x86 architectures and
compiled in powerpc architecture

Just small style issues in this review.

Very good review comments, kiitos :)

quoted

+static const struct ieee80211_ops plfxlc_ops = {
+	.tx                 = plfxlc_op_tx,
+	.start              = plfxlc_op_start,
+	.stop               = plfxlc_op_stop,
+	.add_interface      = plfxlc_op_add_interface,
+	.remove_interface   = plfxlc_op_remove_interface,
+	.set_rts_threshold  = purelifi_set_rts_threshold,
+	.config             = plfxlc_op_config,
+	.configure_filter   = plfxlc_op_configure_filter,
+	.bss_info_changed   = plfxlc_op_bss_info_changed,
+	.get_stats          = purelifi_get_stats,
+	.get_et_sset_count  = purelifi_get_et_sset_count,
+	.get_et_stats       = purelifi_get_et_stats,
+	.get_et_strings     = purelifi_get_et_strings,
+};

Just asking why some prefixes are purelifi and some are plfxlc?

Good point, I guess this is because the driver was called purelifi
before. I think throughout the driver "plfxlc_" should be used and
"purelifi_" should be dropped altogether.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches