Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Remove several variables that are zero from struct r8192_priv

PATCH New Philipp Hortmann 1 participant 7 messages Jan 20, 2023 Staging

lore
Share & tools
lore

Philipp Hortmann

author
#0 lore raw

cover Remove several variables that are zero from struct r8192_priv

The arrays EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel are initialized to zero and never changed. These arrays are used to initialize other variables that are then also zero. Remove several variables set to zero to avoid camelCase and to remove dead code.

Tested with rtl8192e (But most of this code is not executed on my hardware) Transferred this patch over wlan connection of rtl8192e

Philipp Hortmann (6):
staging: rtl8192e: Combine three loops to one to init tx_pwr_level_...
staging: rtl8192e: Init tx_pwr_level_cck_a and friends directly
staging: rtl8192e: Remove zeroed arrays tx_pwr_level_cck_a and friends
staging: rtl8192e: Remove ant_pwr_diff which is always zero
staging: rtl8192e: Remove u4RegValue which is always zero
staging: rtl8192e: Remove repeated set to zero of powerlevel and
friend

 .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c    | 31 -------------------
 .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c    | 24 ++------------
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h  |  8 -----
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/6 staging: rtl8192e: Combine three loops to one to init tx_pwr_level_...

The arrays EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel are initialized to zero and never changed. The three loops contain the same code. Only the index of the upper named arrays go from 0 to 2. Therefore the three loops can be combined to one loop from 0 to 13 which removes useless code.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 .../staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c    | 22 +------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c +1 -21
index 227c13d552fc..7187ee4c75f6 100644
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ static void _rtl92e_read_eeprom_info(struct net_device *dev)
 						     0xf0) >> 4;
 		} else if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C56) {
 
-			for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+			for (i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
 				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i] =
 					 priv->EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel[0];
 				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] =

@@ -436,26 +436,6 @@ static void _rtl92e_read_eeprom_info(struct net_device *dev)
 				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] =
 					 priv->EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[0];
 			}
-			for (i = 3; i < 9; i++) {
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i]  =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel[1];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[1];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel[1];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[1];
-			}
-			for (i = 9; i < 14; i++) {
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i]  =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel[2];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[2];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel[2];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[2];
-			}
 			priv->legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff =
 				 priv->eeprom_legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0] = 0;
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#2 lore raw

PATCH 2/6 staging: rtl8192e: Init tx_pwr_level_cck_a and friends directly

In reply to Philipp Hortmann

The arrays EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel, EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel are initialized to zero and never changed. Delete the arrays and set the variables directly to zero to avoid CamelCase which is not accepted by checkpatch.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c | 12 ++++--------
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h   |  4 ----
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c +4 -8
index 7187ee4c75f6..fdf37c56066c 100644
@@ -427,14 +427,10 @@ static void _rtl92e_read_eeprom_info(struct net_device *dev)
 		} else if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C56) {
 
 			for (i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel[0];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[0];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel[0];
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] =
-					 priv->EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[0];
+				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i] = 0;
+				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] = 0;
+				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[i] = 0;
+				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] = 0;
 			}
 			priv->legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff =
 				 priv->eeprom_legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff;
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h +0 -4
index 11f3f88491b2..596693fbee4c 100644
@@ -423,10 +423,6 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 
 	u8 eeprom_tx_pwr_level_cck[14];
 	u8 eeprom_tx_pwr_level_ofdm24g[14];
-	u8 EEPROMRfACCKChnl1TxPwLevel[3];
-	u8 EEPROMRfAOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[3];
-	u8 EEPROMRfCCCKChnl1TxPwLevel[3];
-	u8 EEPROMRfCOfdmChnlTxPwLevel[3];
 	u16 eeprom_ant_pwr_diff;
 	u8 eeprom_thermal_meter;
 	u8 eeprom_crystal_cap;
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#3 lore raw

PATCH 3/6 staging: rtl8192e: Remove zeroed arrays tx_pwr_level_cck_a and friends

In reply to Philipp Hortmann

The arrays tx_pwr_level_cck_a, tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a, tx_pwr_level_cck_c and tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c are initialized to zero and never changed. Delete the upper named arrays and set the variables directly to zero to avoid useless code.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c |  7 -------
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c | 11 +++++------
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h   |  4 ----
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_dev.c +0 -7
index fdf37c56066c..b721bb72007d 100644
@@ -425,13 +425,6 @@ static void _rtl92e_read_eeprom_info(struct net_device *dev)
 			priv->thermal_meter[1] = (priv->eeprom_thermal_meter &
 						     0xf0) >> 4;
 		} else if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C56) {
-
-			for (i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[i] = 0;
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[i] = 0;
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[i] = 0;
-				priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[i] = 0;
-			}
 			priv->legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff =
 				 priv->eeprom_legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0] = 0;
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c +5 -6
index ff66a97b8763..33e3435b50b2 100644
@@ -594,14 +594,13 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 		powerlevelOFDM24G = priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g[channel - 1];
 	} else if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C56) {
 		if (priv->rf_type == RF_1T2R) {
-			powerlevel = priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_c[channel - 1];
-			powerlevelOFDM24G = priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[channel - 1];
+			powerlevel = 0;
+			powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
 		} else if (priv->rf_type == RF_2T4R) {
-			powerlevel = priv->tx_pwr_level_cck_a[channel - 1];
-			powerlevelOFDM24G = priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[channel - 1];
+			powerlevel = 0;
+			powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
 
-			ant_pwr_diff = priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[channel - 1]
-				       - priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[channel - 1];
+			ant_pwr_diff = 0;
 
 			ant_pwr_diff &= 0xf;
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h +0 -4
index 596693fbee4c..59049ad349e0 100644
@@ -464,11 +464,7 @@ struct r8192_priv {
 
 	u32 mcs_tx_pwr_level_org_offset[6];
 	u8 tx_pwr_level_cck[14];
-	u8 tx_pwr_level_cck_a[14];
-	u8 tx_pwr_level_cck_c[14];
 	u8 tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g[14];
-	u8 tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_a[14];
-	u8 tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g_c[14];
 	u8 legacy_ht_tx_pwr_diff;
 	u8 antenna_tx_pwr_diff[3];
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#4 lore raw

PATCH 4/6 staging: rtl8192e: Remove ant_pwr_diff which is always zero

In reply to Philipp Hortmann

ant_pwr_diff is set to zero and then masked which will always result in zero. Remove ant_pwr_diff and use zero direct as it is just useless code.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c +1 -6
index 33e3435b50b2..c969c40c3979 100644
@@ -586,7 +586,6 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 {
 	struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
 	u8	powerlevel = 0, powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
-	s8	ant_pwr_diff;
 	u32	u4RegValue;
 
 	if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C46) {

@@ -600,12 +599,8 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 			powerlevel = 0;
 			powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
 
-			ant_pwr_diff = 0;
-
-			ant_pwr_diff &= 0xf;
-
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[2] = 0;
-			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[1] = (u8)(ant_pwr_diff);
+			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[1] = 0;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0] = 0;
 
 			u4RegValue = priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[2] << 8 |
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#5 lore raw

PATCH 5/6 staging: rtl8192e: Remove u4RegValue which is always zero

In reply to Philipp Hortmann

As the array antenna_tx_pwr_diff is always zero, u4RegValue is always set to zero. Replace u4RegValue to avoid CamelCase which is not accepted by checkpatch.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c | 8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c +1 -7
index c969c40c3979..d56c58ecc19f 100644
@@ -586,7 +586,6 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 {
 	struct r8192_priv *priv = rtllib_priv(dev);
 	u8	powerlevel = 0, powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
-	u32	u4RegValue;
 
 	if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C46) {
 		powerlevel = priv->tx_pwr_level_cck[channel - 1];

@@ -603,13 +602,8 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[1] = 0;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0] = 0;
 
-			u4RegValue = priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[2] << 8 |
-				      priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[1] << 4 |
-				      priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0];
-
 			rtl92e_set_bb_reg(dev, rFPGA0_TxGainStage,
-					  (bXBTxAGC|bXCTxAGC|bXDTxAGC),
-					  u4RegValue);
+					  (bXBTxAGC | bXCTxAGC | bXDTxAGC), 0);
 		}
 	}
 	switch (priv->rf_chip) {
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0
author
#6 lore raw

PATCH 6/6 staging: rtl8192e: Remove repeated set to zero of powerlevel and friend

In reply to Philipp Hortmann

Variables powerlevel and powerlevelOFDM24G are initialized to zero and unchanged. No reason to set them to zero again. Remove dead code.

Signed-off-by Philipp Hortmann <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c | 8 +-------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/r8192E_phy.c +1 -7
index d56c58ecc19f..95a21859c7e0 100644
@@ -591,13 +591,7 @@ void rtl92e_set_tx_power(struct net_device *dev, u8 channel)
 		powerlevel = priv->tx_pwr_level_cck[channel - 1];
 		powerlevelOFDM24G = priv->tx_pwr_level_ofdm_24g[channel - 1];
 	} else if (priv->epromtype == EEPROM_93C56) {
-		if (priv->rf_type == RF_1T2R) {
-			powerlevel = 0;
-			powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
-		} else if (priv->rf_type == RF_2T4R) {
-			powerlevel = 0;
-			powerlevelOFDM24G = 0;
-
+		if (priv->rf_type == RF_2T4R) {
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[2] = 0;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[1] = 0;
 			priv->antenna_tx_pwr_diff[0] = 0;
Signature · 1 line
2.39.0