Hi Stanislaw,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:14:52AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:27:31AM +0200, Tom Psyborg wrote:
> > On 09/10/2018, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > There is dupliceted 'if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT6352))' entry that couses
> > > we do not perform proper register initaliztion for RT6352 (MT7620 SOCs).
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Tomislav Požega <pozega.tomislav@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> > > b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> > > index daf20d7424ac..170e7c87f7bc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> > > @@ -5451,8 +5451,7 @@ static int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev
> > > *rt2x00dev)
> > > 0x00000000);
> > > }
> > > } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT5390) ||
> > > - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT5392) ||
> > > - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT6352)) {
> > > + rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT5392)) {
> > > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG0, 0x00000404);
> > > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG1, 0x00080606);
> > > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_SW_CFG2, 0x00000000);
> > > --
> > > 2.7.5
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > have you got chance to test
> > https://github.com/psyborg55/linux/commit/24b46d482590a87553df1de0b5c8032f363cb7cf
> > ?
> >
> > using this code to determine 7620 soc
> >
> > if (rt == RT5390 && rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev))
> > rt = RT6352;
> >
> > somehow did not work in rt2800_init_registers routine. i could verify
> > that by removing tx_sw_cfg registers from rt6352 and the wifi would
> > still work, unless removed them from rt5390 also
>
> I tested by adding additional printk("Init RT6352 registers\n"); in
> if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT6352)) branch. The message was printed:
>
> [ 68.049946] ieee80211 phy0: rt2x00_set_rt: Info - RT chipset 6352, rev 0500 detected
> [ 68.065392] ieee80211 phy0: rt2x00_set_rf: Info - RF chipset 7620 detected
> [ 68.079777] ieee80211 phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'minstrel_ht'
> [ 68.177760] kmodloader: done loading kernel modules from /etc/modules.d/*
> [ 68.825758] urandom_read: 5 callbacks suppressed
> [ 68.825768] random: jshn: uninitialized urandom read (4 bytes read)
> [ 77.792400] 8021q: adding VLAN 0 to HW filter on device eth0
> [ 77.825045] br-lan: port 1(eth0.1) entered blocking state
> [ 77.836032] br-lan: port 1(eth0.1) entered disabled state
> [ 77.847156] device eth0.1 entered promiscuous mode
> [ 77.856739] device eth0 entered promiscuous mode
> [ 77.931043] br-lan: port 1(eth0.1) entered blocking state
> [ 77.941861] br-lan: port 1(eth0.1) entered forwarding state
> [ 77.953171] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): br-lan: link is not ready
> [ 78.849852] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): br-lan: link becomes ready
> [ 82.302306] Init RT6352 registers
>
> Perhaps rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) does not work on this particular system
> that you have and device is configured as RT5390 ? I.e. maybe this is
> PCIe device. This should be printed in :
>
> ieee80211 phy0: rt2x00_set_rt: Info - RT chipset 6352, rev 0500 detected
>
> line, you should have 'RT chipset 5390' instead.
RT6352 is the pre-mediatek-merge name of MT7620A/N. It is always a SoC.
The RF part of both MT7620A and MT7620N identifies as RT5390. The
vendor driver also uses an equivalent check to destinguish between the
actual PCIe/USB RT5390xx and RT6352, see
https://github.com/i80s/mtk-sources/blob/master/mt7620/src/include/rtmp_chip.h#L114
Cheers
Daniel
>
> Thanks
> Stanislaw
