Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/1/25 18:30, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Shayne Chen <shayne.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2025-03-31 at 05:55 +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Shayne Chen <shayne.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +bool mt7996_eeprom_has_background_radar(struct mt7996_dev *dev)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + switch (mt76_chip(&dev->mt76)) {
> >>>> + case MT7996_DEVICE_ID:
> >>>> + if (dev->var.type == MT7996_VAR_TYPE_233)
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case MT7992_DEVICE_ID:
> >>>> + if (dev->var.type == MT7992_VAR_TYPE_23)
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + case MT7990_DEVICE_ID: {
> >>>> + u8 path, rx_path, nss, *eeprom = dev-
> >>>>> mt76.eeprom.data;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + mt7996_eeprom_parse_stream(eeprom, MT_BAND1, &path,
> >>>> &rx_path, &nss);
> >>>> + /* Disable background radar capability in 3T3R */
> >>>> + if (path == 3 || rx_path == 3)
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>
> >>> The indentation of close brace looks weird.
> >>
> >> Will fix it, thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Since -Wdeclaration-after-statement is dropped, I think compilers
> >>> will not
> >>> warn without the braces. But note that it is still not recommended to
> >>> put declarations in the middle.
> >>>
> >> Since those variables are currently only used by mt7990 case, I think
> >> they can be putting there for the moment.
> >
> > That looks not very natural though...
> >
> > In fact, the declarations either in beginning of this function or at the
> > mt7990 case, the frame size (stack) are the same.
>
> The open parens make it the start of a new code block, so even strict
> old c compilers should handle this just fine, and I personally like
> variables kept to a tight local scope if possible. Unless there is a
> technical reason to change the code, then there are probably more important
> things to worry about.
Understood.
I just wanted to mentioned weird brace styles in switch-case. It looks like
no uniform style, but many styles implemented in wireless drivers. Not sure
which one is preferred.
style (A) - close brace align 'case'
switch (foo) {
case A:
...
case B: {
...
break;
}
default:
break;
}
style (B) - close brace with indentation
switch (foo) {
case A:
...
case B: {
...
break;
}
default:
break;
}
style (C) - like (B), but 'break' outside of brace.
switch (foo) {
case A:
...
case B: {
...
}
break;
default:
break;
}
