On 9 October 2014 12:22, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/09/14 12:11, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I know where the function should be called according our driver and guess
> what:
>
> if (bfl& BFL_FEM&& chip == 4313) {
> if (!(boardrev>= 0x1250 && bfl& BFL_FEM_BT))
> ai_epa_4313war(wlc_hw->sih);
> + else
> + ai_btcombo_p250_4313_war(wlc_hw->sih);
> }
So if your internal codebase for wl driver also checks for BFL_FEM, it
seems my guess was wrong. There must be something else that matters.
Unfortunately I have only BCM94313HMG2L which doesn't include BT.
--
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
