Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:54380 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752390Ab0DZT7s (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:59:48 -0400 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so498bwz.21 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Helmut Schaa To: Gertjan van Wingerde Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization. Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:59:34 +0200 Cc: "John W. Linville" , Ivo van Doorn , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com, Luis Correia References: <1270989075-2267-1-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> <201004261302.14682.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <4BD5EEFC.6050003@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BD5EEFC.6050003@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <201004262159.34077.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > On 04/26/10 13:02, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Am Sonntag 11 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > >> rt2x00 had preliminary support for RT3070 based devices, but the support was > >> incomplete. > >> Update the RT3070 register initialization to be similar to the latest Ralink > >> vendor driver. > >> > >> With this patch my rt3070 based devices start showing a sign of life. > > > > Gertjan, this patch breaks rx on my 305x SoC device. See inline comments for > > more details. > > > > [...] > > > >> @@ -1643,18 +1653,12 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > >> { > >> u8 rfcsr; > >> u8 bbp; > >> + u32 reg; > >> + u16 eeprom; > >> > >> - if (rt2x00_is_usb(rt2x00dev) && > >> - !rt2x00_rt_rev(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070E)) > >> + if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070)) > >> return 0; > >> > >> - if (rt2x00_is_pci(rt2x00dev) || rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) { > >> - if (!rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3020) && > >> - !rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3021) && > >> - !rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3022)) > >> - return 0; > >> - } > > > > Any reason why you've removed this part? The following code was executed on > > pci and soc devices when they had an 3020, 3021 or 3022 rf. > > I removed it because the Ralink driver only checks for RT chipset type, not for > the RF chipset type. Looks like that in the conversion the unmentioned RT2872 > got lost. > > > > >> /* > >> * Init RF calibration. > >> */ > >> @@ -1665,13 +1669,13 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > >> rt2x00_set_field8(&rfcsr, RFCSR30_RF_CALIBRATION, 0); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, rfcsr); > >> > >> - if (rt2x00_is_usb(rt2x00dev)) { > >> + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070)) { > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x70); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x71); > >> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x41); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x7b); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > >> @@ -1684,48 +1688,25 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x16); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x03); > >> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x1f); > >> - } else if (rt2x00_is_pci(rt2x00dev) || rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) { > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > >> - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > > > > This part is actually needed for getting rx to work on the SoC devices. > > Hmm, interesting, as I don't know where this code actually came from. It isn't needed for > PCI devices in general (at least not the PCI devices I've checked), so it may be specific to SoC. > > > > > Should I post a patch that adds this code again and is only executed on SoC > > devices with rf3020, 3021 and 3022? > > > > OK. I have just checked the two RT2872 based devices I have (one PCI one and one USB one), > and both of them act very strangely. Strangely ;) ? The SoC device was basically able to transmit frames but could't receive at all (at least that was my impression). Do you have a different issue? > I'll check against the Ralink SoC driver code that I've got as to how the initialization should actually > be. Ok. Helmut