On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Valo, Kalle <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> There are two types of swapping the EEPROM data in the ath9k driver. >>> Before this series one type of swapping could not be used without the >>> other. >>> >>> The first type of swapping looks at the "magic bytes" at the start of >>> the EEPROM data and performs swab16 on the EEPROM contents if needed. >>> The second type of swapping is EEPROM format specific and swaps >>> specific fields within the EEPROM itself (swab16, swab32 - depends on >>> the EEPROM format). >>> >>> With this series the second part now looks at the EEPMISC register >>> inside the EEPROM, which uses a bit to indicate if the EEPROM data >>> is Big Endian (this is also done by the FreeBSD kernel). >>> This has a nice advantage: currently there are some out-of-tree hacks >>> (in OpenWrt and LEDE) where the EEPROM has a Big Endian header on a >>> Big Endian system (= no swab16 is performed) but the EEPROM itself >>> indicates that it's data is Little Endian. Until now the out-of-tree >>> code simply did a swab16 before passing the data to ath9k, so ath9k >>> first did the swab16 - this also enabled the format specific swapping. >>> These out-of-tree hacks are still working with the new logic, but it >>> is recommended to remove them. This implementation is based on a >>> discussion with Arnd Bergmann who raised concerns about the >>> robustness and portability of the swapping logic in the original OF >>> support patch review, see [0]. >>> >>> After a second round of patches (= v1 of this series) neither Arnd >>> Bergmann nor I were really happy with the complexity of the EEPROM >>> swapping logic. Based on a discussion (see [1] and [2]) we decided >>> that ath9k should use a defined format (specifying the endianness >>> of the data - I went with __le16 and __le32) when accessing the >>> EEPROM fields. A benefit of this is that we enable the EEPMISC based >>> swapping logic by default, just like the FreeBSD driver, see [3]. On >>> the devices which I have tested (see below) ath9k now works without >>> having to specify the "endian_check" field in ath9k_platform_data (or >>> a similar logic which could provide this via devicetree) as ath9k now >>> detects the endianness automatically. Only EEPROMs which are mangled >>> by some out-of-tree code still need the endian_check flag (or one can >>> simply remove that mangling from the out-of-tree code). >>> >>> Testing: >>> - tested by myself on AR9287 with Big Endian EEPROM >>> - tested by myself on AR9227 with Little Endian EEPROM >>> - tested by myself on AR9381 (using the ar9003_eeprom implementation, >>> which did not suffer from this whole problem) >>> - how do we proceed with testing? maybe we could keep this in a >>> feature-branch and add these patches to LEDE once we have an ACK to >>> get more people to test this >>> >>> This series depends on my other series (v7): >>> "add devicetree support to ath9k" - see [4] >> >> I think this looks pretty good. If there's a bug somewhere it should be >> quite easy to fix so I'm not that worried and would be willing to take >> these as soon as I have applied the dependency series. IIRC your >> devicetree patches will have at least one more review round so that will >> take some time still. In the meantime it would be great if LEDE folks >> could take a look at these and comment (or test). > > So are everyone happy with this? I haven't seen any comments. If I don't > here anything I'm planning to take these, most likely for 4.11. after being busy due to <daytime job and other things in life> I'm currently trying to get the patches into LEDE: [0] (so far there are no major objections) once we get this into LEDE we'll see pretty soon if there are any problems or not -> 4.11 sounds good to me! Regards, Martin [0] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-dev/2016-November/004231.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
