Messages in this thread | | | From | "Fabio M. De Francesco" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] staging: r8188eu: Use usb_control_msg_recv/send() in usbctrl_vendorreq() | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2021 02:20:29 +0200 |
| |
On Monday, August 23, 2021 1:05:17 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: > On 8/23/21 1:47 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> I think, we can pass REALTEK_USB_VENQT_{READ,WRITE} directly as > >> requesttype argument and get rid of u8 reqtype. + we can define these > >> macros: > >> > >> #define > >> usbctrl_vendor_read(...) usbctrl_vendorreq(...,REALTEK_USB_VENQT_READ) > >> > >> #define > >> usbctrl_vendor_write() usbctrl_vendorreq(...,REALTEK_USB_VENQT_WRITE) > >> > >> This will make code more nice, IMO :) > > > > Dear Pavel, > > > > I agree in full: nicer and cleaner :) > > > > I'll do that, but please notice that I will also need to change the code of the three > > usb_read*() for calling usbctrl_vendor_read(). Furthermore, "else res = 0;" becomes > > unnecessary. Please take these changes into account when you'll send them again > > as "regular" patches.
I have reconsidered the tip above and, while I appreciate your suggestion, I think it's not so necessary to use the macros only to get rid of "u8 reqtype". I finally got rid of that variable by passing the request types explicitly to usb_control_msg_recv/send().
> It depends on which patch will go in first. > > There are a lot of upcoming clean ups, so I am waiting for merging my > series with random clean ups :) A lot of fun...
A lot of fun... Sure? :)
> I biggest hope is that my series will go in before camel-case clean ups, > because rewriting this for the 3rd time will kill my mind...
In this case, I wouldn't want to be in your place :) > > With regards, > Pavel Skripkin
Thanks again very much for your review,
Fabio
| |