Return-path: Received: from nbd.name ([88.198.39.176]:33212 "EHLO ds10.nbd.name" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750856Ab0DILw4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 07:52:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4BBF150E.3030507@openwrt.org> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:52:46 +0200 From: Felix Fietkau MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Helmut Schaa CC: Gertjan van Wingerde , "John W. Linville" , Ivo van Doorn , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] rt2x00: Align RT chipset definitions with vendor driver. References: <1270763437-29526-1-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> <4BBEB6E1.70300@gmail.com> <4BBEBE6B.20209@openwrt.org> <201004091332.26307.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <201004091332.26307.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-04-09 1:32 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau: >> On 2010-04-09 7:10 AM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: >> > On 04/09/10 00:28, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> >> On 2010-04-08 11:50 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: >> >>> Only include definitions for RT chipsets that are also used inside the >> >>> Ralink vendor drivers. >> >>> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde >> >>> --- >> >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 13 ------------- >> >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h | 7 +++---- >> >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >> >>> index 394c8e4..4bc7e09 100644 >> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >> >>> @@ -1209,10 +1209,7 @@ int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) >> >>> rt2x00_set_field32(®, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_MPDU, AGGREGATION_SIZE); >> >>> if ((rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872) && >> >>> (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) >= RT2880E_VERSION)) || >> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2880) || >> >>> rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2883) || >> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2890) || >> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052) || >> >>> (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && >> >>> (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < RT3070_VERSION))) >> >>> rt2x00_set_field32(®, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_PSDU, 2); >> >>> @@ -1511,12 +1508,6 @@ int rt2800_init_bbp(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) >> >>> rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 105, 0x05); >> >>> } >> >>> >> >>> - if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052)) { >> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x08); >> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 78, 0x0e); >> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 80, 0x08); >> >>> - } >> >>> - >> >> Why are you removing support for RT3052? IMHO those writes were >> >> necessary, last time I tested the rt2800pci code on the RT3052 WiSoC. >> > >> > That is because I have not been able to find them in any of the Ralink vendor drivers. >> > Actually, none of the Ralink vendor drivers mention an RT chipset that identifies itself >> > as a RT3052. The only mentioning Ive seen is RT305x devices that identify themselves as >> > RT2872 devices, but even for them I haven't found these BBP initializations. >> > That's why I removed this part. >> > >> > I have no problem re-instating this if I can find some evidence that these devices >> > actually exist. >> These chipsets won't show up in STA-only drivers, because they belong to >> embedded APs. If you download GPL sources for devices such as ASUS >> RT-N15 you will find ifdefs for CONFIG_RALINK_RT3052 and the above >> values in BBPRegTable in the driver sources. >> I have a few devices based on RT3052, which is why I added this code. >> At some point I even had basic Rx/Tx working on it, but haven't tested >> in a while. > > I also couldn't find any evidence of the existence of an 3052 _rt_ chipset. > However, the ralink drivers defines a 3052 _rf_ chip: > > #define RFIC_3052 9 // 2.4G/5G 2T2R RT3052 is the name of the whole WiSoC chip, not just the MAC or RF part of it. Since wifi is integrated in the SoC, I don't think there is a separate name for just the wifi part. > I don't have such an rf chip in my devices but I don't think the BPP > register setup should depend on the actual rf chip. So, if the register > setup is really needed we should maybe check for rt2x00_is_soc instead > of removing the code? Yes, but rt2x00_is_soc() is not enough, since RT2880 is also SoC, but slightly different compared to RT3052. I've only tested RT3052 myself. - Felix