Message-ID: <54365985.1020104@broadcom.com> (sfid-20141009_114652_175603_DF2008F5)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:46:45 +0200
From: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>
CC: Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@daemonizer.de>,
	Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
	"brcm80211 development" <brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RTF][RFC] brcmsmac: add workaround for old BCM4313 devices
 with Bluetooth
References: <1412843867-26563-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <CACna6ry-+hzMJ4n5PG7GJq9fZ+zwU38HGt-xZkUqKEP8yX6avA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACna6ry-+hzMJ4n5PG7GJq9fZ+zwU38HGt-xZkUqKEP8yX6avA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 10/09/14 11:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 9 October 2014 10:37, Rafał Miłecki<zajec5@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> +       /* TODO: Fix the condition. Only for boards>= P250 */
>> +       if (ai_get_chip_id(wlc_hw->sih) == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4313&&  (wlc_hw->boardflags&  BFL_FEM_BT)) {
>> +               pr_info("Applying BCM4313 WL/BT workaround\n");
>> +               ai_btcombo_p250_4313_war(wlc_hw->sih);
>> +       }
>
> This of course have to be checked in some hardware documentation for
> the correct condition. We already have some workaround (right above
> the newly added code) for boards with boardrev>= 0x1250. So my guess
> is the code I added applies to some other cards. The board this patch
> is supposed to fix is:
> board vendor: 14e4
> board type: 608
> board revision: 1109
> board flags: 402201
> board flags2: 884
> firmware revision: 262032c
>
> So whatever condition we will need it'll likely need to cover above
> case (maybe boardrev == 0x1109?).

Well, there is something fishy going on. The brcmsmac code looks like:

if (bfl & BFL_FEM && chip == 4313) {
	if (!(boardrev >= 0x1250 && bfl & BFL_FEM_BT))
		ai_epa_4313war(wlc_hw->sih);
}

However the boardflags above (0x402201) only has BFL_FEM_BT set so this 
code is never called. I have to ask if !BFL_FEM && BFL_FEM_BT is a valid 
combination.

Regards,
Arend