On 2014-02-17 03:27, Sujith Manoharan wrote: > Felix Fietkau wrote: >> Wouldn't it be better to do this for all AR93xx chipsets in >> ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh instead of initvals? >> I'm pretty sure this patch will leave most other devices non-compliant. > > The threshold values are adjusted for each chip and are not the same > for all chips in the AR9003 family, so this is done in the initvals. Almost all chips are using the same values in the initvals - the exceptions seem to be the ones that have had ETSI compliance fix attempts already. I'm pretty sure the new values (if adjusted for different bands) would be fully compatible. > ar9003_hw_apply_minccapwr_thresh() will be used only for chips which > contain the new 'MinCCApwr' field in struct ar9300_BaseExtension_1. > This is not present in almost all the AR9003-family chips. I believe it has > been introduced in AR955x. I know. What I meant is that in case the EEPROM does not have any values, we can make it use reasonable fixed defaults, thus overriding the values from the initvals. - Felix -- 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
