Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> On 2010-04-09 7:10 AM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> > On 04/09/10 00:28, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-08 11:50 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> >>> Only include definitions for RT chipsets that are also used inside the
> >>> Ralink vendor drivers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 13 -------------
> >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h | 7 +++----
> >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >>> index 394c8e4..4bc7e09 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >>> @@ -1209,10 +1209,7 @@ int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> >>> rt2x00_set_field32(®, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_MPDU, AGGREGATION_SIZE);
> >>> if ((rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872) &&
> >>> (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) >= RT2880E_VERSION)) ||
> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2880) ||
> >>> rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2883) ||
> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2890) ||
> >>> - rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052) ||
> >>> (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) &&
> >>> (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < RT3070_VERSION)))
> >>> rt2x00_set_field32(®, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_PSDU, 2);
> >>> @@ -1511,12 +1508,6 @@ int rt2800_init_bbp(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> >>> rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 105, 0x05);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052)) {
> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x08);
> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 78, 0x0e);
> >>> - rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 80, 0x08);
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >> Why are you removing support for RT3052? IMHO those writes were
> >> necessary, last time I tested the rt2800pci code on the RT3052 WiSoC.
> >
> > That is because I have not been able to find them in any of the Ralink vendor drivers.
> > Actually, none of the Ralink vendor drivers mention an RT chipset that identifies itself
> > as a RT3052. The only mentioning Ive seen is RT305x devices that identify themselves as
> > RT2872 devices, but even for them I haven't found these BBP initializations.
> > That's why I removed this part.
> >
> > I have no problem re-instating this if I can find some evidence that these devices
> > actually exist.
> These chipsets won't show up in STA-only drivers, because they belong to
> embedded APs. If you download GPL sources for devices such as ASUS
> RT-N15 you will find ifdefs for CONFIG_RALINK_RT3052 and the above
> values in BBPRegTable in the driver sources.
> I have a few devices based on RT3052, which is why I added this code.
> At some point I even had basic Rx/Tx working on it, but haven't tested
> in a while.
I also couldn't find any evidence of the existence of an 3052 _rt_ chipset.
However, the ralink drivers defines a 3052 _rf_ chip:
#define RFIC_3052 9 // 2.4G/5G 2T2R
I don't have such an rf chip in my devices but I don't think the BPP
register setup should depend on the actual rf chip. So, if the register
setup is really needed we should maybe check for rt2x00_is_soc instead
of removing the code?
I couldn't test yet if the bpp register setup makes any difference here.
Helmut
--
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
