Hi Stanislaw, On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:18:57AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:22:44PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On 2019-10-28 06:07, wbob wrote: > > > Hello Roman, > > > > > > while reading around drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > > I stumbled on what I think is an edit of yours made in error in march > > > 2017: > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/41977e86#diff-dae5dc10da180f3b055809a48118e18aR5281 > > > > > > RT6352 in line 5281 should not have been introduced as the "else if" > > > below line 5291 can then not take effect for a RT6352 device. Another > > > possibility is for line 5291 to be not for RT6352, but this seems > > > very unlikely. Are you able to clarify still after this substantial time? > > > > > > 5277: static int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > > ... > > > 5279: } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT5390) || > > > 5280: rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT5392) || > > > 5281: rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT6352)) { > > > ... > > > 5291: } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT6352)) { > > > ... > > > > Hence remove erroneous line 5281 to make the driver actually > > execute the correct initialization routine for MT7620 chips. > > > > Fixes: 41977e86c984 ("rt2x00: add support for MT7620") > > Reported-by: wbob <wbob@xxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Roman Yeryomin <roman@xxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > 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 f1cdcd61c54a..c85456c8c193 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ralink/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > @@ -5839,8 +5839,7 @@ static int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_TXBF_CFG_0, 0x8000fc21); > > rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_TXBF_CFG_3, 0x00009c40); > > } 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); > > I'm not sure if initialization on different path, is proper for all > variants of RT6352 chipset. Particularly I noticed that configuring > MIMO_PS_CFG can cause problems on wt3020. That's pretty odd, as this register is also written unconditionally by the vendor driver, see: https://github.com/wuqiong/rt2860v2-for-openwrt-mt7620/blob/master/rt2860v2/chips/rt6352.c#L529 https://github.com/wuqiong/rt2860v2-for-openwrt-mt7620/blob/master/rt2860v2/chips/rt6352.c#L696 As only ChipVer >= 2 has been seen in the wild apparently, it seems Roman implemented support for MT7620 along that codepath in the original driver: https://github.com/wuqiong/rt2860v2-for-openwrt-mt7620/blob/master/rt2860v2/chips/rt6352.c#L713 However, now looking at this more, also rt2800_register_write(rt2x00dev, TX_ALC_VGA3, 0x00000000); doesn't match that codepath in the vendor driver which sets 0x06060606. Now we could really implement all the codepaths for all pkg, ver, eco variants of MT7620 using the accessors like I patched here: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/target/linux/ramips/patches-4.14/300-mt7620-export-chip-version-and-pkg.patch (accessor for mt7620_get_eco was already in place as it is used also by MMC/SD driver afair) Which MT7620 chip package, version and eco is found inside the wt3020? (printed early on dmesg) Cheers Daniel
