From: Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
The minimum CCA power threshold values have to be adjusted
for existing cards to be in compliance with new regulations.
Newer cards will make use of the values obtained from EEPROM,
support for this was added earlier. To make sure that cards
that are already in use and don't have proper values in EEPROM,
do not violate regulations, use the initvals instead.
Cc: [email protected]
Reported-by: Jeang Daniel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9462_2p0_initvals.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9462_2p0_initvals.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9462_2p0_initvals.h
index 1cc1356..1b6b4d0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9462_2p0_initvals.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9462_2p0_initvals.h
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static const u32 ar9462_2p0_baseband_postamble[][5] = {
{0x00009e14, 0x37b95d5e, 0x37b9605e, 0x3236605e, 0x32365a5e},
{0x00009e18, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000},
{0x00009e1c, 0x0001cf9c, 0x0001cf9c, 0x00021f9c, 0x00021f9c},
- {0x00009e20, 0x000003b5, 0x000003b5, 0x000003ce, 0x000003ce},
+ {0x00009e20, 0x000003a5, 0x000003a5, 0x000003a5, 0x000003a5},
{0x00009e2c, 0x0000001c, 0x0000001c, 0x00000021, 0x00000021},
{0x00009e3c, 0xcf946220, 0xcf946220, 0xcfd5c782, 0xcfd5c282},
{0x00009e44, 0x62321e27, 0x62321e27, 0xfe291e27, 0xfe291e27},
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ static const u32 ar9462_2p0_baseband_postamble[][5] = {
{0x0000ae04, 0x001c0000, 0x001c0000, 0x001c0000, 0x00100000},
{0x0000ae18, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000},
{0x0000ae1c, 0x0000019c, 0x0000019c, 0x0000019c, 0x0000019c},
- {0x0000ae20, 0x000001b5, 0x000001b5, 0x000001ce, 0x000001ce},
+ {0x0000ae20, 0x000001a6, 0x000001a6, 0x000001aa, 0x000001aa},
{0x0000b284, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000550, 0x00000550},
};
--
1.8.5.4
Felix Fietkau wrote:
> Almost all chips are using the same values in the initvals - the
> exceptions seem to be the ones that have had ETSI compliance fix
> attempts already. I'm pretty sure the new values (if adjusted for
> different bands) would be fully compatible.
For most of the chips, adjusting AR_PHY_CCA_MAX_GOOD_VAL_9300_2GHZ/5GHZ
from the previous values to -60 is sufficient and the initvals don't
need any changes to be compliant. For some chips, the change in the max. CCA
threshold require adjustments in the minCCApwr_thr field - it is easier to do this
via the initvals.
This has been done for AR9485, AR9462 and AR9565 so far.
AR9485: new value is -50 dB
AR9565: new value is -92 dB
AR9462:
chain 0 : 2G: -91dB, 5G: -88dB
chain 1 : 2G: -91dB, 5G: -90dB
The SoC chips do not have any corresponding changes in
minCCApwr_thr for the new CCA_MAX_GOOD_VAL. The only weird exception
is AR9331 which has new minCCApwr_thr values in the internal PCOEM driver,
but not in the SoC driver - not sure which one is correct.
Sujith
On 2014-02-14 03:45, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> From: Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
>
> The minimum CCA power threshold values have to be adjusted
> for existing cards to be in compliance with new regulations.
> Newer cards will make use of the values obtained from EEPROM,
> support for this was added earlier. To make sure that cards
> that are already in use and don't have proper values in EEPROM,
> do not violate regulations, use the initvals instead.
>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Reported-by: Jeang Daniel <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
Wouldn't it be better to do this for all AR93xx chipsets in
ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh instead of initvals?
I'm pretty sure this patch will leave most other devices non-compliant.
- Felix
Felix Fietkau wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to do this for all AR93xx chipsets in
> ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh instead of initvals?
> I'm pretty sure this patch will leave most other devices non-compliant.
The threshold values are adjusted for each chip and are not the same
for all chips in the AR9003 family, so this is done in the initvals.
ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh() will be used only for chips which
contain the new 'MinCCApwr' field in struct ar9300_BaseExtension_1.
This is not present in almost all the AR9003-family chips. I believe it has
been introduced in AR955x.
Sujith
On 2014-02-17 03:27, Sujith Manoharan wrote:
> Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to do this for all AR93xx chipsets in
>> ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh instead of initvals?
>> I'm pretty sure this patch will leave most other devices non-compliant.
>
> The threshold values are adjusted for each chip and are not the same
> for all chips in the AR9003 family, so this is done in the initvals.
Almost all chips are using the same values in the initvals - the
exceptions seem to be the ones that have had ETSI compliance fix
attempts already. I'm pretty sure the new values (if adjusted for
different bands) would be fully compatible.
> ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh() will be used only for chips which
> contain the new 'MinCCApwr' field in struct ar9300_BaseExtension_1.
> This is not present in almost all the AR9003-family chips. I believe it has
> been introduced in AR955x.
I know. What I meant is that in case the EEPROM does not have any
values, we can make it use reasonable fixed defaults, thus overriding
the values from the initvals.
- Felix