> From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] rtw88: major fixes for 8822c to have stable > functionalities > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:21:13PM +0800, yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Note this patch set is based on the original patch set "rtw88: mac80211 > > driver for Realtek 802.11ac wireless network chips". > > The latest would be here, for reference: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10787651/ > http://lkml.kernel.org/linux-wireless/1548820940-15237-1-git-send-email-yhch > uang@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > These patches are mean to make sure 8822c chip to operate normal for most > > of the basic functionalities, such as power on, switch channel, scan, > > connection establish and connection monitor. > > > > As the original patch set was sent 3 months ago, progress has been made > > by Realtek during the past months. Now we have tested on more chips and > > released tables and parameters for them. Also the chips are all > > programed with efuse map released for 8822c. > > > > Most of the changes are about BB and RF, both control the tx/rx path. > > PHY parameters/seq and efuse info make sure the hardware is powered on > > correctly. And channel setting updates help driver to switch to target > > channel accurately. Then trx mode setting and DACK will make hardware to > > have stable performance to tx/rx to connect to AP. > > > > Here tx power control is also required to transmit with a precise power. > > Otherwise if the power is too high or too low, the peer might not be able > > to receive the signal. > > > > Finally, we need to report correct tx status for mac80211's connection > > monitor system, this requires firmware's C2H of tx status report. After > > this, users can use 8822c chips for more stable wireless communication. > > Besides the comments I added (and needing to fix the out-of-bounds > reads), this series helpfully adds RFE 1 support, so the 8822C chip I > have works for some basic functions -- it's not too snappy, and I feel > like there's still plenty of room for improvement but: > > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > And except for a handful of patches (should look at patch 1 closer), > these all look pretty sane and helpful. > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I still need to pass back over the original patchset and try a few more > things out. > > Regards, > Brian Thanks for your review, helps a lot! Yan-Hsuan
