Luis,
On 04/01/10 23:14, Luis Correia wrote:
> The ralink SoC platforms do not have an MCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Correia <luis.f.correia@xxxxxxxxx>
I know Ivo already acked the v2 version of the patch, but isn't the
addition of a driver flag a bit overkill?
We have the test on whether the platform is SOC w.r.t. MCU requests
in 2 places, and both of them are in rt2800 code. I do not really see
a need to clutter the global rt2x00 space with a rt2800 specific flag,
which is only used in rt2800 code.
> ---
>
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c 2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c 2010-04-01
> 13:05:18.249747122 +0100
> @@ -221,9 +221,9 @@
> u32 reg;
>
> /*
> - * SOC devices don't support MCU requests.
> + * some devices don't support MCU requests.
> */
> - if (rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev))
> + if (!test_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags))
> return;
>
> mutex_lock(&rt2x00dev->csr_mutex);
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c 2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c 2010-04-01
> 13:04:42.453621607 +0100
> @@ -59,6 +59,12 @@
> {
> unsigned int i;
> u32 reg;
> +
> + /*
> + * some devices don't support MCU requests.
> + */
> + if (!test_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags))
> + return;
>
> for (i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
> rt2800_register_read(rt2x00dev, H2M_MAILBOX_CID, ®);
So, the minimal patch would be simply this change to rt2800pci, and to have it
test for SoC (via rt2x00_is_soc).
> @@ -1098,10 +1104,12 @@
> __set_bit(DRIVER_SUPPORT_CONTROL_FILTER_PSPOLL, &rt2x00dev->flags);
>
> /*
> - * This device requires firmware.
> + * This device requires firmware and MCU access.
> */
> - if (!rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev))
> + if (!rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) {
> __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_FIRMWARE, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> + __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> + }
> __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_DMA, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_L2PAD, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> if (!modparam_nohwcrypt)
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h 2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h 2010-04-01
> 13:01:26.812694036 +0100
> @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@
> * Driver requirements
> */
> DRIVER_REQUIRE_FIRMWARE,
> + DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU,
> DRIVER_REQUIRE_BEACON_GUARD,
> DRIVER_REQUIRE_ATIM_QUEUE,
> DRIVER_REQUIRE_DMA,
If we choose to have the flag anyways:
>From a naming point of view, this name is aligned with the other flags.
However, from a usage point of view it would be better to have a flag
DRIVER_NO_MCU, so we don't have to have the negative tests above, and
have no tests at all that determine if MCU is allowed.
---
Gertjan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
