Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:55943 "EHLO mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751181Ab0DIMbV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:31:21 -0400 Received: by wwi17 with SMTP id 17so819481wwi.19 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:31:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4BBF1CF1.3090809@openwrt.org> References: <1270763437-29526-1-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> <201004091332.26307.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <4BBF150E.3030507@openwrt.org> <201004091423.58803.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> <4BBF1CF1.3090809@openwrt.org> From: Luis Correia Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:30:59 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] rt2x00: Align RT chipset definitions with vendor driver. To: Felix Fietkau Cc: Helmut Schaa , Gertjan van Wingerde , "John W. Linville" , Ivo van Doorn , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 13:26, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2010-04-09 2:23 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote: >> Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau: >>> 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. >> >> There is. I have one 3052 and one 3050 board (basically a 3052 but only >> 1T1R), and both identify themselves as RT2872 with different rf "chips" >> (of course, there are no additional chips). Hence, the check for RT3052 >> was never true on both platforms. > Back when I tested it, I forced the chip to identify itself as RT3052 by > taking the id from the platform device. > >>> > 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. >> >> Right. So, from what I've seen so far it seems like all 305x boards identify >> themselves as rt2872. Hence, we can just replace 3052 with 2872 in the above >> check and leave the code as is. > OK, if that doesn't conflict with any PCI based stuff... I have a rt2880 based SOC device, my main AP Minitar, I'll hook up the console to it and report what RT-RF chipset combination it has. > > - Felix > -- Luis Correia