Return-path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.26]:59678 "EHLO ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933597Ab0DHWdz (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:33:55 -0400 Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id d26so254199eyd.19 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:33:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ivo van Doorn To: Gertjan van Wingerde Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization. Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:33:47 +0200 References: <1270763437-29526-1-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> <1270763437-29526-7-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1270763437-29526-7-git-send-email-gwingerde@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201004090033.48341.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Cc: "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 08 April 2010, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > 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. > > Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde > @@ -1086,7 +1084,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rt2800_link_tuner); > */ > int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > { > - u32 reg; > + u32 reg, reg2; > unsigned int i; > > rt2800_register_read(rt2x00dev, WPDMA_GLO_CFG, ®); > @@ -1204,11 +1202,18 @@ int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > rt2x00_set_field32(®, BKOFF_SLOT_CFG_CC_DELAY_TIME, 2); > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, BKOFF_SLOT_CFG, reg); > > - if (rt2x00_is_usb(rt2x00dev) && > - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) == 0x0200) { > + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070)) { > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG0, 0x00000400); > - rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG1, 0x00000000); > - rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG2, 0x00000000); > + > + if (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < 0x0201) { > + reg = 0x00000000; > + reg2 = 0x0000002c; > + } else { > + reg = 0x00080606; > + reg2 = 0x00000000; > + } > + rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG1, reg); > + rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG2, reg2); Might as well put the rt2800_register_write call into the if, rather then storing it into variables first. That way it is consistent with the rest of the code. > @@ -1751,6 +1739,28 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > rt2x00_set_field8(&bbp, BBP4_BANDWIDTH, 0); > rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 4, bbp); > > + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < 0x0201) > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x03); > + > + rt2800_register_read(rt2x00dev, OPT_14_CSR, ®); > + rt2x00_set_field32(®, OPT_14_CSR_BIT0, 1); > + rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, OPT_14_CSR, reg); > + > + rt2800_rfcsr_read(rt2x00dev, 17, &rfcsr); > + rt2x00_set_field8(&rfcsr, RFCSR17_R2, 0); > + rt2x00_eeprom_read(rt2x00dev, EEPROM_RSSI_BG2, &eeprom); > + if ((eeprom & 0x07) >= 1) Might be nicer to do the access using rt2x00_get_field16, plus some name for this magical field in the header file. > + rt2x00_set_field8(&rfcsr, RFCSR17_R1, eeprom & 0x07); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, rfcsr); > + > + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070)) { > + rt2800_rfcsr_read(rt2x00dev, 27, &rfcsr); > + rfcsr &= 0x77; > + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < 0x0201) > + rfcsr |= 0x03; > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, rfcsr); > + } Any ideas what these fields mean? Could set_field8 and _get_field8 simplify the code? Ivo