Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] Bluetooth: hci_qca: adjust qca btsoc type print expression

[Johan Hovold]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 03:34:53PM +0800, Tim Jiang wrote:
> On 7/27/23 15:27, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:40:10PM +0800, Tim Jiang wrote:

> >> @@ -1762,10 +1763,32 @@ static int qca_setup(struct hci_uart *hu)
> >>   	 */
> >>   	set_bit(HCI_QUIRK_SIMULTANEOUS_DISCOVERY, &hdev->quirks);
> >>   
> >> -	bt_dev_info(hdev, "setting up %s",
> >> -		qca_is_wcn399x(soc_type) ? "wcn399x" :
> >> -		(soc_type == QCA_WCN6750) ? "wcn6750" :
> >> -		(soc_type == QCA_WCN6855) ? "wcn6855" : "ROME/QCA6390");
> >> +	switch (soc_type) {
> >> +	case QCA_AR3002:
> >> +		soc_name = "ar300x";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case QCA_ROME:
> >> +		soc_name = "ROME";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case QCA_QCA6390:
> >> +		soc_name = "QCA6390";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case QCA_WCN3990:
> >> +	case QCA_WCN3991:
> >> +	case QCA_WCN3998:
> >> +		soc_name = "wcn399x";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case QCA_WCN6750:
> >> +		soc_name = "wcn6750";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case QCA_WCN6855:
> >> +		soc_name = "wcn6855";
> >> +		break;
> > I still think the above should be sorted (alphabetically) as maintaining
> > these lists otherwise soon becomes harder than it should be. And similar
> > throughout the driver.

> [Tim] Hi Johan: I think we no need to sort it, we only add the new btsoc 
> name following the older one, for example , ar300x is the oldest , ROME 
> is new than ar300x, actually qca2066 is newer version chip than qca6390, 
> so I does not think we need to sort it.

Possibly, but generally this becomes hard to maintain and eventually
someone will need to sort these entries anyway. Therefore it's generally
a good idea to just do so from the start.

But it was good that you replied so that we know that this comment was
not just missed or ignored.

> >> +	default:
> >> +		soc_name = "unknown soc";
> >> +		break;
> >> +	}
> >> +	bt_dev_info(hdev, "setting up %s", soc_name);

Johan