On 10/14/2016 06:32 AM, Valo, Kalle wrote: > Steve deRosier <derosier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Erik Stromdahl >> <erik.stromdahl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This patch series is intended to prepare the ath6kl driver >>> for newer chipsets that doesn't use the current WMI data >>> endpoints for data traffic. >>> >>> The chipset I have been working with (and used for testing) >>> is QCA6584. It is SDIO based (at least the variant I have >>> been using) with 802.11p WAVE DSRC capabilities. >>> >>> This chipset is different from the AR600X family in that >>> it does not use the WMI data services (service id's 0x101 >>> to 0x104 ) for data traffic. >>> Instead it uses the HTT data service for data and wmi unified >>> for control messages. >>> It is also different when it comes to mailbox addresses >>> and HTC header format as well, but these differences are not >>> part of this patch series. >>> >> >> I've only taken a quick look and I'll make specific comments to >> specific patches later, but I've got to ask the question, should these >> changes go into ath6kl or be a new driver? >> >> Just because the number starts with 6000 doesn't mean it's a ath6kl >> chip. The 10k series chips all start with 9000 for example, but they >> rate their own driver. >> >> You state that all of the underpinnings of the communication with the >> chip are totally different: >> * Doesn't use WMI >> * Different mailboxing >> * Different HTC layer >> >> If all of the commands and all of the communication layers to the chip >> are totally different, then perhaps it isn't an ath6kl chip. So if >> it's largely similar, then OK, but seems to me with the changes you're >> saying above, it's mostly different. >> >> I'm saying all that without any knowledge of this chip. My experience >> is limited to various versions of the 6003 and 6004 chips. > > Exactly what I was thinking. When I saw terms like "HTT" and "unified > WMI" my first thought was that is this actually an ath10k based design? > The product numbers really don't give any indication what driver > supports, the division goes something like this: > > * ath9k: "non-mobile" 11n chips > * ath6k: mobile 11n chips > * ath10k: mobile and "non-mobile" 11ac chips > > For example QCA6174 is an 11ac mobile chip supported by ath10k. ath10k > only supports PCI bus at the moment, but I'm hoping someone would add > USB and SDIO support. Patches are very welcome. > > I'm starting to suspect that QCA6584 is actually based on the same > design as QCA6174. If that's the case when we should also think if > instead we should add SDIO support to ath10k, maybe by taking relevant > parts from ath6kl? > > I'll investigate more what this QCA6584 is, I haven't heard about it > before. > The reason I have patched to ath6kl driver was that it is the only driver with sdio/mbox support. I was actually thinking of writing a new driver from scratch, but I thought that it was less work to modify the existing ath6kl driver. I just haven't considered the option to add sdio/mbox support to ath10k. This is definitely something I will have a look at. I should mention that I have been using the qcacld2.0 driver as "documentation" of the chipset. The qcacld driver identifies the chipset as AR6320 >From the qcacld2.0 driver bmi_msg.h: #define TARGET_TYPE_AR6320 8 Perhaps this can shed some light on what kind of chip this is?
