[ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior

[sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in>]

Sorry for multiple mails. Please find all the register values and configurations. As mentioned earlier all are values as in the existing code and only weight registers have changed (0x0000 for WLAN and 0xFFFF for BT):
?
1. BT_COEX configuration:
?
??? {true, 
?? .bt_time_extend = 0, 
?? .bt_txstate_extend = 
?? .bt_txframe_extend = true, ???.bt_mode = ATH_BT_COEX_MODE_SLOTTED, ?? .bt_quiet_collision = true, ?? .bt_rxclear_polarity = true, ? .bt_priority_time = 2,
?? .bt_first_slot_time = 5,
? .bt_hold_rx_clear = 
??? };
?true,?? conststructath_btcoex_config ath_bt_config = ??? if(AR_SREV_9300_20_OR_LATER(ah)) ????? ? rxclear_polarity = !ath_bt_config.bt_rxclear_polarity;
?
??? btcoex_hw->bt_coex_mode =
??? (btcoex_hw->bt_coex_mode & AR_BT_QCU_THRESH) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_time_extend, AR_BT_TIME_EXTEND) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_txstate_extend, AR_BT_TXSTATE_EXTEND) |
??????SM(ath_bt_config.bt_txframe_extend, AR_BT_TX_FRAME_EXTEND) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_mode, AR_BT_MODE) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_quiet_collision, AR_BT_QUIET) |
????? SM(rxclear_polarity, AR_BT_RX_CLEAR_POLARITY) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_priority_time, AR_BT_PRIORITY_TIME) |
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_first_slot_time, AR_BT_FIRST_SLOT_TIME) |
????? SM(qnum, AR_BT_QCU_THRESH); ????? btcoex_hw->bt_coex_mode2 =
????? SM(ath_bt_config.bt_hold_rx_clear, AR_BT_HOLD_RX_CLEAR) |
????? SM(ATH_BTCOEX_BMISS_THRESH, AR_BT_BCN_MISS_THRESH) | ???? AR_BT_DISABLE_BT_ANT; 
} /* ath9k_hw_init_btcoex_hw */
?
?
2. BTCOEX initialization:/* connect bt_active to baseband */REG_CLR_BIT(ah, AR_GPIO_INPUT_EN_VAL,
(AR_GPIO_INPUT_EN_VAL_BT_PRIORITY_DEF |
AR_GPIO_INPUT_EN_VAL_BT_FREQUENCY_DEF));
REG_SET_BIT(ah, AR_GPIO_INPUT_EN_VAL,
AR_GPIO_INPUT_EN_VAL_BT_ACTIVE_BB);/* Set input mux for bt_active to gpio pin */REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_GPIO_INPUT_MUX1,
AR_GPIO_INPUT_MUX1_BT_ACTIVE,
btcoex_hw->btactive_gpio);/* Configure the desired gpio port for input */ath9k_hw_cfg_gpio_input(ah, btcoex_hw->btactive_gpio);
?
3. BTCOEX Enable:REG_WRITE(ah, AR_BT_COEX_MODE, btcoex_hw->bt_coex_mode);
REG_WRITE(ah, AR_BT_COEX_MODE2, btcoex_hw->bt_coex_mode2);
REG_WRITE(ah, AR_BT_COEX_WEIGHT, btcoex_hw->bt_coex_weights);/* Configure the desired GPIO port for TX_FRAME output */ath9k_hw_cfg_output(ah, btcoex_hw->wlanactive_gpio,
AR_GPIO_OUTPUT_MUX_AS_TX_FRAME);
?
4. Weight register setting:ath9k_hw_btcoex_set_weight(ah, 0xffff,
0x0000);
?
Regards
Sandeep.?? boolrxclear_polarity = ath_bt_config.bt_rxclear_polarity;?
?
?
?
?

________________________________
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in> 
Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@msujith.org>; ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>; "linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org> 
Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior


Hi,

Please supply the register values that you're programming in here.

Thanks,



adrian


On 15 April 2013 00:53, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Hello Mr.Adrian,
>? ? I continued my testing with:
> 1. 2-wire coexistence mode with WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE lines
> 2.? Different values to the weight registers. For most of the cases I give a
> 0x0000 weightage to WLAN and 0xFFFF weightage to BT, to ensure that BT
> always gets the priority for any type of WLAN traffic.
> 3. WiFi in Access Point mode. I have connected one WiFi source (WiFi camera
> as client ) and WiFi destination (Laptop as client).
>
> I definetely see a lot of difference (based on status of WLAN_ACTIVE) with
> and without Co-existence active. Following are the observations:
> 1. Without the BT_ACTIVE signal, the WLAN traffic seems to be evenly
> distributed.
> 2. Next I duty cycle BT_ACTIVE with 100ms period, 70ms for BT and 30ms for
> WiFi. The observation is that when BT_ACTIVE is true, the WiFi activity is
> REDUCED but not completely eliminated. My understanding is that when
> BT_ACTIVE is True WLAN should show logic '0'.
>
> The following are some queries:
> a. WiFi chipset is in WiFI AP mode and WLAN_ACTIVE is True when either
> WLAN_TX or WLAN_RX is True. So are the pulses I see during BT_ACTIVE true
> are because of WLAN_RX? The following is the configuration for WLAN_ACTIVE
> gpio
>
> /* Configure the desired GPIO port for TX_FRAME output */
>? ath9k_hw_cfg_output(ah, btcoex_hw->wlanactive_gpio,
>? ? ? ? AR_GPIO_OUTPUT_MUX_AS_TX_FRAME);
> b. Is there a way to configure the MUX and GPIO in a manner to do some thing
> like this?
>? ? When WLAN_TX is active than GPIO6 is activated
>? ? When WLAN_RX is active than GPIO7 is activated.
> c. Or is it that I need to use 3-wire coexistence for this kind of wifi
> configuration (WiFI AP mode)?
> d. Please let me know if there is any basic mis-understanding I have?
>
> Thanks & regards
> Sandeep.
> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
> To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in>
> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@msujith.org>; ath9k-devel
> <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>; "linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org"
> <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 12:52 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior
>
> No, wifi stomping occurs with both 2-wire and 3-wire.
>
> BT_PRIORITY just gives the MAC the ability to tell the difference
> between high priority TX and any bt activity requiring the air, so the
> MAC can then choose a weight based on differnet kinds of BT inputs.
>
> If all you have is two wire, then you don't get separate weight table
> entries for different kinds of BT transmissions.
>
>
>
> adrian
>
> On 9 April 2013 23:13, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> Hello Mr.Adrian,
>>? ? Thanks for your response. I understand the following: Please correct if
>> I am wrong.
>> 1. With WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE, the wireless medium is managed between
>> BT
>> and WLAN without stomping the traffic.
>> 2. With WLAN_ACTIVE, BT_ACTIVE and BT_PRIORITY, WiFI traffic stomping is
>> possible.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sandeep.
>>
>> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
>> To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in>
>> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@msujith.org>; ath9k-devel
>> <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>; "linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org"
>> <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 11:07 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior
>>
>> Right, but same deal - if it asserts the line, it should stomp wifi
>> transmission in your particular scheme.
>>
>>
>>
>> adrian
>>
>>
>> On 9 April 2013 19:37, sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>> Hello Mr.Adrian,
>>>? ? Thanks for your response. During googling, I had come across the
>>> following 2-wire coexistence solution from owl modules.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://support.connectblue.com/display/PRODWLAN/cB-OWL22x+Bluetooth+co-existence+application+note
>>> According to this application note, for 2-wire coexistence, WLAN_ACTIVE
>>> and
>>> BT_PRIORITY signals are used rather than WLAN_ACTIVE and BT_ACTIVE.? What
>>> is
>>> your opinion on this? And as I understand owl modules are based on
>>> Atheros
>>> chipsets.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Sandeep.
>>>
>>> From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
>>> To: sandeep suresh <sandeep.suresh@yahoo.co.in>
>>> Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@msujith.org>; ath9k-devel
>>> <ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org>; "linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org"
>>> <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2013 4:30 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] AR9287 ; 2-wire coexistence expected behavior
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes, "WLAN_ACTIVE" here is just both TX and RX activity.
>>>
>>> So if it were working, that would stay low.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> adrian
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



txq = sc->tx.txq_map[WME_AC_BE];
ath9k_hw_init_btcoex_hw(sc->sc_ah, txq->axq_qnum);
sc->btcoex.bt_stomp_type = ATH_BTCOEX_STOMP_ALL;
?
?void ath9k_hw_init_btcoex_hw(struct ath_hw *ah, int qnum)
{
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ath9k.org/pipermail/ath9k-devel/attachments/20130416/237650a4/attachment-0001.htm