On 10/31/07, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2007/10/31, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On 10/31/07, Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 2007/10/31, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > On 10/27/07, Nick Kossifidis <mick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > * Give more infos about mac/phy/radio revision during attach.
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -535,10 +568,24 @@ ath5k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > goto err_ah;
> > > > >
> > > > > - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "%s chip found: mac %d.%d phy %d.%d\n",
> > > > > - ath5k_chip_name(id->driver_data), sc->ah->ah_mac_version,
> > > > > - sc->ah->ah_mac_revision, sc->ah->ah_phy_revision >> 4,
> > > > > - sc->ah->ah_phy_revision & 0xf);
> > > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Atheros AR%s chip found: MAC 0x%x, PHY: 0x%x\n",
> > > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_VER,sc->ah->ah_mac_srev),
> > > > > + sc->ah->ah_mac_srev,
> > > > > + sc->ah->ah_phy_revision);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if(sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision && !sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision){
> > > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s radio found (0x%x)\n",
> > > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision),
> > > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision);
> > > > > + } else if(sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision && sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision){
> > > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s 5GHz radio found (0x%x)\n",
> > > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision),
> > > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_5ghz_revision);
> > > > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "RF%s 2GHz radio found (0x%x)\n",
> > > > > + ath5k_chip_name(AR5K_VERSION_RAD,sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision),
> > > > > + sc->ah->ah_radio_2ghz_revision);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > /* ready to process interrupts */
> > > > > __clear_bit(ATH_STAT_INVALID, sc->status);
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have ACK'd this as I believe its a lot more useful information than
> > > > what we had before but I am confused by what some different prints may
> > > > yield. For example, on AR5213, I get:
> > > >
> > > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: Atheros AR5213 chip found: MAC 0x56, PHY: 0x41
> > > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: RF5111 5GHz radio found (0x17)
> > > > ath5k_pci 0001:11:02.0: RF2111 2GHz radio found (0x23)
> > > >
> > > > On my Cardbus card, I then get:
> > > >
> > > > ath5k_pci 0000:15:00.0: Atheros AR5213A chip found: MAC 0x59, PHY: 0x43
> > > > ath5k_pci 0000:15:00.0: RF5112A radio found (0x36)
> > > >
> > > > Now, both are capable of 2 GHz and 5 GHz though and only one prints a
> > > > line which shows the type of RF both for 2 GHz and 5 GHz. Essentially
> > > > my ah_radio_2ghz_revision is 0x00 for that card. What exactly does
> > > > having a print for both RFs here indicate besides the fact we are
> > > > indicating the type of radio and revision? And in the Cardbus card I
> > > > have where only one RF line is printed what does that indicate?
> > > >
> > > > Luis
> > >
> > > RF5111 is only 5GHz capable without 2111, 2111 is only 2GHz capable
> > > (it's actually an extension to 5111), on the other hand 5112 is
> > > multiband, that's why we don't say it's type.
> >
> > Can add in the message that its RF is multiband then (2GHz/5GHz note will work)?
> >
> > > On single chip solutions
> > > both revisions are 0 so no RF chip msg is displayed.
> >
> > Hm.. interesting.. we probably should inform the band the RF is
> > capable of then at least. What do you think?
> >
>
> Note: We set them to zero (check out attach) to make things easier.
> I believe that for single chips we should check capability bits and
> for b/g only report 2GHz, for a only report 5Ghz and for both report
> multband or nothing.
Agreed, and for the last part I think it might be more helpful to
report 'multiband' instead of nothing.
> > > We have to handle this better for b/g only cards but i didn't have
> > > such cards to test so i'll try it later (first we have to see what's
> > > going on and they don't work).
> >
> > You have one now?
> >
> > Luis
> >
>
> Nope but i believe that regdumps from them should give us something...
Yes, but its easier if we get you an BG card for testing purposes.
Anyone know where we can reliably purchase them from?
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
