On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 05:44:00PM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2010-12-03 5:50 AM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 07:15:28AM +0530, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> On 2010-12-02 12:06 PM, Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan wrote:
> >> > Signed-off-by: Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vasanth@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> > 1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c
> >> > index b34a9e9..136e64a 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c
> >> > @@ -25,6 +25,24 @@ static const int cycpwrThr1_table[] =
> >> > /* level: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 */
> >> > { -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 }; /* lvl 0-7, default 3 */
> >> >
> >> > +/* Chansel table used by ar9485 */
> >> > +static const u32 ar9003_chansel_xtal_40M[] = {
> >> > + 0xa0ccbe,
> >> > + 0xa12213,
> >> > + 0xa17769,
> >> > + 0xa1ccbe,
> >> > + 0xa22213,
> >> > + 0xa27769,
> >> > + 0xa2ccbe,
> >> > + 0xa32213,
> >> > + 0xa37769,
> >> > + 0xa3ccbe,
> >> > + 0xa42213,
> >> > + 0xa47769,
> >> > + 0xa4ccbe,
> >> > + 0xa5998b,
> >> > +};
> >> > +
> >> > /*
> >> > * register values to turn OFDM weak signal detection OFF
> >> > */
> >> > @@ -75,7 +93,12 @@ static int ar9003_hw_set_channel(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan)
> >> > freq = centers.synth_center;
> >> >
> >> > if (freq < 4800) { /* 2 GHz, fractional mode */
> >> > - channelSel = CHANSEL_2G(freq);
> >> > + if (AR_SREV_9485(ah)) {
> >> > + int ichan = ieee80211_frequency_to_channel(freq);
> >> > +
> >> > + channelSel = ar9003_chansel_xtal_40M[ichan - 1];
> >> How about using this formula for AR9485:
> >>
> >> #define CHANSEL_2G_AR9485(_freq) (((_freq) * 0x10000 - 215) / CHANSEL_DIV)
> >>
> >> While I don't know where the 215 comes from (the calculation does not
> >> appear to be documented anywhere and I found it by trial & error),
> >> I do think it's better to have a simple formula than a long table
> >> of hardcoded values.
> >
> > I don't know, having some arbitrary formula would
> > complicate things especially if we want to integrate
> > changes from internal code base. I prefer the table.
> How would it complicate things? Right now the resulting values are
> exactly the same. If we get a new table from the HAL, I'll either come
> up with a new formula, or we switch to the table then. But in the mean
> time we'll have better code.
In that case, I'm not comfortable with the magic number. I'll try to
ask people about the relation between the older one and the newer
one.
Vasanth
--
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
