On 2010-04-09 2:23 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau:
>> On 2010-04-09 1:32 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>> > 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
>> RT3052 is the name of the whole WiSoC chip, not just the MAC or RF part
>> of it. Since wifi is integrated in the SoC, I don't think there is a
>> separate name for just the wifi part.
>
> There is. I have one 3052 and one 3050 board (basically a 3052 but only
> 1T1R), and both identify themselves as RT2872 with different rf "chips"
> (of course, there are no additional chips). Hence, the check for RT3052
> was never true on both platforms.
Back when I tested it, I forced the chip to identify itself as RT3052 by
taking the id from the platform device.
>> > 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?
>> Yes, but rt2x00_is_soc() is not enough, since RT2880 is also SoC, but
>> slightly different compared to RT3052. I've only tested RT3052 myself.
>
> Right. So, from what I've seen so far it seems like all 305x boards identify
> themselves as rt2872. Hence, we can just replace 3052 with 2872 in the above
> check and leave the code as is.
OK, if that doesn't conflict with any PCI based stuff...
- Felix
--
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
