On mar, apr 27, 2010 at 01:15:21 +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> On lun, apr 26, 2010 at 01:11:20 +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Helmut Schaa:
> > > Am Sonntag 11 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde:
> > > > rt2x00 had preliminary support for RT3070 based devices, but the support was
> > > > incomplete.
> > > > Update the RT3070 register initialization to be similar to the latest Ralink
> > > > vendor driver.
> > > >
> > > > With this patch my rt3070 based devices start showing a sign of life.
> > >
> > > Gertjan, this patch breaks rx on my 305x SoC device. See inline comments for
> > > more details.
> >
> > Antonio, did that patch also break rx on your PCI device with rt2872?
> > If not this is only needed for SoC.
> Hi, I cloned the wireless-testing git a few minutes ago.
> My card (rt2x00_set_chip: Info - Chipset detected - rt: 2872, rf: 0003,
> rev: 0200) on miniPCI works correctly without any kind of problem.
> No hangs at all.
Hi all, I found out that after this commit:
commit 23812383c6b03afef44c4aa642500f8235c3d079
Author: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Apr 26 13:48:45 2010 +0200
rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices
my card becomes unstable, I mean that the connection lose packets and
sometimes it disassociates from the AP.
I also found that the singnal level reported by iwconfig is wrong (it
reports -191dBm)
Regards
>
> Regards
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Helmut
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > @@ -1643,18 +1653,12 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> > > > {
> > > > u8 rfcsr;
> > > > u8 bbp;
> > > > + u32 reg;
> > > > + u16 eeprom;
> > > >
> > > > - if (rt2x00_is_usb(rt2x00dev) &&
> > > > - !rt2x00_rt_rev(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070E))
> > > > + if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070))
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > - if (rt2x00_is_pci(rt2x00dev) || rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) {
> > > > - if (!rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3020) &&
> > > > - !rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3021) &&
> > > > - !rt2x00_rf(rt2x00dev, RF3022))
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > - }
> > >
> > > Any reason why you've removed this part? The following code was executed on
> > > pci and soc devices when they had an 3020, 3021 or 3022 rf.
> > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Init RF calibration.
> > > > */
> > > > @@ -1665,13 +1669,13 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> > > > rt2x00_set_field8(&rfcsr, RFCSR30_RF_CALIBRATION, 0);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, rfcsr);
> > > >
> > > > - if (rt2x00_is_usb(rt2x00dev)) {
> > > > + if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070)) {
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x70);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x71);
> > > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x41);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x7b);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90);
> > > > @@ -1684,48 +1688,25 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x16);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x03);
> > > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x1f);
> > > > - } else if (rt2x00_is_pci(rt2x00dev) || rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) {
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13);
> > > > - rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83);
> > >
> > > This part is actually needed for getting rx to work on the SoC devices.
> > >
> > > Should I post a patch that adds this code again and is only executed on SoC
> > > devices with rf3020, 3021 and 3022?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Helmut
> > >
>
> --
> Antonio Quartulli
>
> Ognuno di noi, da solo, non vale nulla
> Ernesto "Che" Guevara
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/mailman/listinfo/users_rt2x00.serialmonkey.com
--
Antonio Quartulli
Ognuno di noi, da solo, non vale nulla
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
--
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
