Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Liao Yuanhong <liaoyuanhong@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The variable off_reverse and its related code are completely redundant in
> > the function. Remove them to clean the code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liao Yuanhong <liaoyuanhong@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c | 12 ++----------
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
> > b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
> > index d0e299803225..f23754a5c7b9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c
> > @@ -1799,22 +1799,14 @@ static void _dpk_onoff(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_rf_path path, bool
> o
> > {
> > struct rtw89_dpk_info *dpk = &rtwdev->dpk;
> > u8 val, kidx = dpk->cur_idx[path];
> > - bool off_reverse;
> >
> > - val = dpk->is_dpk_enable && !off && dpk->bp[path][kidx].path_ok;
Please use this style. Otherwise, compiler warns
../drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852bt_rfk.c:1803:34: warning: dubious: x & !y
> > -
> > - if (off)
> > - off_reverse = false;
> > - else
> > - off_reverse = true;
> > -
> > - val = dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse & dpk->bp[path][kidx].path_ok;
> > + val = dpk->is_dpk_enable & !off & dpk->bp[path][kidx].path_ok;
>
> The previous patch has merged. Please re-spin this patch on top of rtw-next [1].
> The subject should be "[PATCH rtw-next]", so NIPA can do correct tree selection.
>
> [1] https://github.com/pkshih/rtw.git rtw-next
>
> >
> > rtw89_phy_write32_mask(rtwdev, R_DPD_CH0A + (path << 8) + (kidx << 2),
> > BIT(24), val);
> >
> > rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_RFK, "[DPK] S%d[%d] DPK %s !!!\n", path,
> > - kidx, str_enable_disable(dpk->is_dpk_enable & off_reverse));
> > + kidx, str_enable_disable(dpk->is_dpk_enable & !off));
> > }
> >
> > static void _dpk_one_shot(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, enum rtw89_phy_idx phy,
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
