On 02/25/2012 01:52 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
On 02/23/2012 10:52 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Wireless Broadcom chips can have either their SPROM data stored
on either external SPROM or on-chip OTP memory. Both are accessed
through the same register space. This patch adds support for the
on-chip OTP memory.
Tested with:
BCM43224 OTP and SPROM
BCM4331 SPROM
BCM4313 OTP
Does bcma now support the same features regarding sprom and otp as
brcmsamc expect it does not read out all the attributes brcmsmac reads
out or are there any features still missing? I am just asking because
the code used in brcmsmac is ~4 times longer.
I started on using bcma sprom content in brcmsmac and indeed there are
some entries missing. The change in this patch only provides read-access
to the srom data. As the chip comes up for read-access there is not much
programming need to accomplish that. The only feature that is not there
is that on some chips OTP can be powered down for power-saving. The
current chips supported by BCMA don't have that.
This patch is in response so gmane article [1].
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/85426
Cc: Saul St. John<saul.stjohn@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rafal Milecki<zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Hauke Mehrtens<hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Larry Finger<Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel<arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Determining the offset for OTP sprom data turned out to be
easier as it boils down to reading a register. This change
collides with patch posted by Hauke:
I will test you patch on my device soon and will report if something is
wrong. If you are sending a non RFC patch in the next days I would
rebase my patch onto yours. The code searching in the SoCs flash chip
will be added to run if bcma_sprom_onchip_available() returns false.
Appreciate any testing on SoCs. I think I will need some time to modify
brcmsmac so let your patch go first.
bcma: add support for sprom not found on the device.
Now working on changes in brcmsmac to start using the sprom
data stored in struct bcma_bus. Feel free to comment this patch.
Gr. AvS
---
drivers/bcma/sprom.c | 118 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
include/linux/bcma/bcma_driver_chipcommon.h | 9 ++
2 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
+#define BCMA_CC_OTPL 0x001C /* OTP layout */
+#define BCMA_CC_OTPL_GURGN_OFFSET 0x00000FFF /* offset of general use region */
#define BCMA_CC_IRQSTAT 0x0020
#define BCMA_CC_IRQMASK 0x0024
#define BCMA_CC_IRQ_GPIO 0x00000001 /* gpio intr */
@@ -79,6 +84,10 @@
#define BCMA_CC_IRQ_WDRESET 0x80000000 /* watchdog reset occurred */
#define BCMA_CC_CHIPCTL 0x0028 /* Rev>= 11 only */
#define BCMA_CC_CHIPSTAT 0x002C /* Rev>= 11 only */
+#define BCMA_CC_CHIPST_4313_SPROM_PRESENT 1
+#define BCMA_CC_CHIPST_4313_OTP_PRESENT 2
+#define BCMA_CC_CHIPST_4331_SPROM_PRESENT 2
+#define BCMA_CC_CHIPST_4331_OTP_PRESENT 4
#define BCMA_CC_JCMD 0x0030 /* Rev>= 10 only */
#define BCMA_CC_JCMD_START 0x80000000
#define BCMA_CC_JCMD_BUSY 0x80000000
What is the correct way to format this file? BCMA_CC_JCMD_BUSY uses two
spaces after the define and BCMA_CC_OTPS_CID_PROTECT uses a tabulator
and a space, what is the correct or intended way to format this? This
does not have directly something to do with this patches as both ways
are currently coded in this file.
I assumed the convention was to use two spaces and I corrected
BCMA_CC_CHIPST_4331_OTP_PRESENT accordingly after reading back my RFC patch.
Gr. AvS
--
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
