From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eduardo Abinader <eduardoabinader@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:08:32 +0200
Subject: [ath9k-devel] TX99 unreliable start sequence
In-Reply-To: <CAOFH_kF1Oz9cP-Bt=NOcKDbiwsefA+RGQGtHGJZaauvW0cyQhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOFH_kF1Oz9cP-Bt=NOcKDbiwsefA+RGQGtHGJZaauvW0cyQhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGoNHnjK+ixni4FuZm0_=kHgtW1ZP2F1-e8X1cxqiJ-Op3Pj_A@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

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
>