From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eduardo Abinader <eduardoabinader@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:11:53 +0200
Subject: [ath9k-devel] TX99 unreliable start sequence
In-Reply-To: <CAGoNHnjK+ixni4FuZm0_=kHgtW1ZP2F1-e8X1cxqiJ-Op3Pj_A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOFH_kF1Oz9cP-Bt=NOcKDbiwsefA+RGQGtHGJZaauvW0cyQhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGoNHnjK+ixni4FuZm0_=kHgtW1ZP2F1-e8X1cxqiJ-Op3Pj_A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGoNHniRxYH33zSXxmEExAkqyHV8hj4qtXoBCkSb3N-fOSw_yQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <ath9k-devel.lists.ath9k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org

Actually, echo $power > tx99_power

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Eduardo Abinader
<eduardoabinader@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason behind that, I think, is due to the fact that you have to
> echo 1 > tx99_power, before setting tx99.
>
> Eduardo
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Mathieu Slabbinck
> <matty.slabbinck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was looking into the TX99 module recently and found that it was not always
>> starting properly.
>> If for example echo 1 > tx99 is done, the wireless module would not start
>> transmitting in all attempts. Even though a cat of tx99 is responding with
>> 1.
>> Do the same command again (without modifying anything else) and the odds
>> increase of the module starting to transmit...
>>
>> Since this was something annoying, I was investigating the write_file_tx99
>> function which seems to be the cause of the improper handling.
>> I've created the patch below and it responds much more reliable. Each
>> request is properly sending out RF waves.
>>
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/tx99.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/tx99.c
>> @@ -191,23 +191,14 @@ static ssize_t write_file_tx99(struct file *file,
>> const char __user *user_buf,
>>      if (strtobool(buf, &start))
>>          return -EINVAL;
>>
>> -    if (start == sc->tx99_state) {
>> -        if (!start)
>> -            return count;
>> -        ath_dbg(common, XMIT, "Resetting TX99\n");
>> -        ath9k_tx99_deinit(sc);
>> -    }
>> -
>> -    if (!start) {
>> -        ath9k_tx99_deinit(sc);
>> -        return count;
>> -    }
>> -
>> -    r = ath9k_tx99_init(sc);
>> -    if (r)
>> -        return r;
>> -
>> -    return count;
>> +    if (start) {
>> +        ath9k_tx99_deinit(sc);
>> +        r = ath9k_tx99_init(sc);
>> +    }
>> +    else {
>> +        ath9k_tx99_deinit(sc);
>> +    }
>> +    return count;
>>  }
>>
>> I'm now just wondering if anyone knows why this piece of code was made this
>> way the first place, as I'm sure it had a purpose...
>>
>> Kr
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ath9k-devel mailing list
>> ath9k-devel at lists.ath9k.org
>> https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
>>