Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]:63547 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752967AbXJaTOH (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:14:07 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so477823pyb for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <43e72e890710311214y52bbdfd3y24d3c05c05257ac6@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20071031_191411_546365_24FA17F4) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:14:06 -0400 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Nick Kossifidis" Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH 4/7] ath5k: Add SREV values for newer chips Cc: ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com, jirislaby@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <40f31dec0710311155p78e41515rf74b6243c4decd40@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 References: <20071027232033.GD5973@localhost.domain.invalid> <43e72e890710311110l4a301f8cpb67b21bd90e251b4@mail.gmail.com> <40f31dec0710311155p78e41515rf74b6243c4decd40@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/31/07, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > 2007/10/31, Luis R. Rodriguez : > > On 10/27/07, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > > > > > * Give more infos about mac/phy/radio revision during attach. > > > > > @@ -535,10 +568,24 @@ ath5k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > > if (ret) > > > goto err_ah; > > > > > > - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "%s chip found: mac %d.%d phy %d.%d\n", > > > - ath5k_chip_name(id->driver_data), sc->ah->ah_mac_version, > > > - sc->ah->ah_mac_revision, sc->ah->ah_phy_revision >> 4, > > > - sc->ah->ah_phy_revision & 0xf); > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Atheros AR%s chip found: MAC 0x%x, PHY: 0x%x\n", > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_VER,sc->ah->ah_mac_srev), > > > + sc->ah->ah_mac_srev, > > > + sc->ah->ah_phy_revision); > > > + > > > + if(sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision && !sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision){ > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s radio found (0x%x)\n", > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision), > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision); > > > + } else if(sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision && sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision){ > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s 5GHz radio found (0x%x)\n", > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision), > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision); > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s 2GHz radio found (0x%x)\n", > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision), > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision); > > > + } > > > + > > > > > > /* ready to process interrupts */ > > > __clear_bit(ATH_STAT_INVALID, sc->status); > > > > > > > I have ACK'd this as I believe its a lot more useful information than > > what we had before but I am confused by what some different prints may > > yield. For example, on AR5213, I get: > > > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: Atheros AR5213 chip found: MAC 0x56, PHY: 0x41 > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: RF5111 5GHz radio found (0x17) > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: RF2111 2GHz radio found (0x23) > > > > On my Cardbus card, I then get: > > > > ath5k_pci 0000:15:00.0: Atheros AR5213A chip found: MAC 0x59, PHY: 0x43 > > ath5k_pci 0000:15:00.0: RF5112A radio found (0x36) > > > > Now, both are capable of 2 GHz and 5 GHz though and only one prints a > > line which shows the type of RF both for 2 GHz and 5 GHz. Essentially > > my ah_radio_2ghz_revision is 0x00 for that card. What exactly does > > having a print for both RFs here indicate besides the fact we are > > indicating the type of radio and revision? And in the Cardbus card I > > have where only one RF line is printed what does that indicate? > > > > Luis > > RF5111 is only 5GHz capable without 2111, 2111 is only 2GHz capable > (it's actually an extension to 5111), on the other hand 5112 is > multiband, that's why we don't say it's type. Can add in the message that its RF is multiband then (2GHz/5GHz note will work)? > On single chip solutions > both revisions are 0 so no RF chip msg is displayed. Hm.. interesting.. we probably should inform the band the RF is capable of then at least. What do you think? > We have to handle this better for b/g only cards but i didn't have > such cards to test so i'll try it later (first we have to see what's > going on and they don't work). You have one now? Luis