Hi Larry, apologies for my late reply. On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:47 PM Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/20/23 13:55, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > > Ping-Ke is right: the eFuse is split into two sections: > > 1. common (RF calibration, EEPROM version, antenna information, > > country code, ...) which is independent of the HCI (host controller > > interface) > > 2. HCI specific bits (PCI vendor/device IDs, USB vendor/device IDs, > > SDIO specifics) > > > > #1 has already existed for a long time and I didn't have to touch it > > since it's the same for the PCIe, USB and SDIO variant of a wireless > > chip. > > > > For #2 there are no (known to me) SDIO specific bits other than the > > MAC address. That's why I only added the MAC address for SDIO. If > > there's more it can still be added. > > Note that the MAC address has different offsets depending on whether > > the HCI is PCIe, USB or SDIO. > > Martin, > > As shown in > https://github.com/lwfinger/rtw88/issues/157#issuecomment-1820421821, driver > rtw88 shows a lot worse performance than the vendor driver for a chip with a > properly encoded EFUSE. Is this not a case of incorrect setting of the > calibration data? My current assumption is that the worse performance (= throughput) is related to the implementation in rtw88's SDIO code, not the programming of the RF parameters. I'm planning to look into this next week. I'd appreciate any hints from Ping-Ke on what to check / how to check (as long as I can do it with very basic equipment - in other words: I don't have an RF analyzer) :-) Best regards, Martin
