On 9 October 2014 11:46, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/09/14 11:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> On 9 October 2014 10:37, Rafał Miłecki<zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> 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);
> }
Ohh, I didn't notice this negation at the beginning... Now meaning of
my functions makes more sense. The old code it only for boardrev <
0x1250 (plus other conditions). This new function has "p250" in its
name, that may mean it's for boardrev >= 0x1250.
> 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.
Yeah, that's fishy. Maybe that new function ai_btcombo_p250_4313_war
should be called if !BFL_FEM && BFL_FEM_BT? But it sounds weird.
--
Rafał
--
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
