* [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices @ 2010-04-26 11:48 Helmut Schaa 2010-04-26 19:55 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-26 21:46 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-26 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Linville; +Cc: Ivo van Doorn, Gertjan van Wingerde, linux-wireless Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) return 0; /* @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); } if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { -- 1.6.4.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-26 11:48 [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-26 19:55 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-26 19:56 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-26 21:46 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-26 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helmut Schaa; +Cc: John Linville, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed > by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". > > This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> I'm checking the Ralink code for these SoC devices. Until I've finished that I'll wait with giving my Ack. > --- > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && > - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) > + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && > + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) > return 0; > > /* > @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); > + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > } > > if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-26 19:55 ` Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-26 19:56 ` Helmut Schaa 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-26 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gertjan van Wingerde; +Cc: John Linville, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed > > by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". > > > > This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> > > I'm checking the Ralink code for these SoC devices. Until I've finished that I'll wait > with giving my Ack. Sure. > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && > > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && > > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && > > - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) > > + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && > > + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) > > return 0; > > > > /* > > @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); > > + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > > } > > > > if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-26 11:48 [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices Helmut Schaa 2010-04-26 19:55 ` Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-26 21:46 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 6:28 ` Helmut Schaa 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-26 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helmut Schaa; +Cc: John Linville, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed > by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". > > This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && > - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) > + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && > + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) > return 0; As indicated in the separate email, we should also check for the presence of an RF3020, RF3021 or RF3022 RF chipset for the RT2872 case (maybe this should be more generic, because I'm sure this will also hold for the other RT chipsets). > > /* > @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); > + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > } > > if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { Here we need 2 additional rfcsr_writes, for RF CSR 30 and RF CSR 31, both set to value 0x00. Also, we can add an "return 0" at the end of the sequence, as nothing more needs to be done for RT2872. --- Gertjan. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-26 21:46 ` Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-27 6:28 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-27 18:03 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-27 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gertjan van Wingerde; +Cc: John Linville, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed > > by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". > > > > This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > > @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && > > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && > > !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && > > - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) > > + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && > > + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) > > return 0; > > As indicated in the separate email, we should also check for the presence of an RF3020, RF3021 > or RF3022 RF chipset for the RT2872 case (maybe this should be more generic, because I'm sure > this will also hold for the other RT chipsets). Ok, do you mean we should only check for rfXXX instead of checking for SoC and rt2872? Or should we check for SoC + rfXXX? > > /* > > @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); > > rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); > > + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > > + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > > } > > > > if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { > > Here we need 2 additional rfcsr_writes, for RF CSR 30 and RF CSR 31, both set to value 0x00. > Also, we can add an "return 0" at the end of the sequence, as nothing more needs to be done for RT2872. Ok, thanks for looking that up. Helmut ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-27 6:28 ` Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-27 18:03 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 18:15 ` John W. Linville 2010-04-27 19:12 ` Helmut Schaa 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-27 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helmut Schaa, John Linville; +Cc: Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On 04/27/10 08:28, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: >> On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: >>> Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed >>> by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". >>> >>> This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >>> index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c >>> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) >>> if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && >>> !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && >>> !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && >>> - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) >>> + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && >>> + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) >>> return 0; >> >> As indicated in the separate email, we should also check for the presence of an RF3020, RF3021 >> or RF3022 RF chipset for the RT2872 case (maybe this should be more generic, because I'm sure >> this will also hold for the other RT chipsets). > > Ok, do you mean we should only check for rfXXX instead of checking for SoC > and rt2872? Or should we check for SoC + rfXXX? I think that at the moment we should be looking at checking for SoC, RT2872 and RFxxxx. To be honest I don't completely know what these RF CSR values represent, we can only find them in a SoC Ralink driver, so FWIW it may simply be good settings for an AP (the main use case for a SoC device) but not so good for an STA. So properly applying this only to SoC devices with the right RT chipset and right RF chipset seems to be the proper thing here. > >>> /* >>> @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); >>> + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); >>> } >>> >>> if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { >> >> Here we need 2 additional rfcsr_writes, for RF CSR 30 and RF CSR 31, both set to value 0x00. >> Also, we can add an "return 0" at the end of the sequence, as nothing more needs to be done for RT2872. > > Ok, thanks for looking that up. And please add the rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) test to that hunk as well. It makes it easier to see that that piece is for SoC RT2872 devices only. P.S. It seems that John already applied this patch without even Ivo or me Acking it, so I guess an incremental patch would be best now. --- Gertjan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-27 18:03 ` Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-27 18:15 ` John W. Linville 2010-04-27 19:41 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 19:12 ` Helmut Schaa 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-04-27 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gertjan van Wingerde; +Cc: Helmut Schaa, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:03:55PM +0200, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > P.S. It seems that John already applied this patch without even Ivo or me Acking it, so I guess an > incremental patch would be best now. Yes, sorry if that offends -- "fix rx path" makes me take things seriously. :-) -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-27 18:15 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-04-27 19:41 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Gertjan van Wingerde @ 2010-04-27 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John W. Linville; +Cc: Helmut Schaa, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On 04/27/10 20:15, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:03:55PM +0200, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote: > >> P.S. It seems that John already applied this patch without even Ivo or me Acking it, so I guess an >> incremental patch would be best now. > > Yes, sorry if that offends -- "fix rx path" makes me take things seriously. :-) > Don't worry about it. No offense was taken. It was more a surprise to see it been applied before I even had to chance to review it, but the patch in itself is correct, it just needs a bit polishing. --- Gertjan. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-27 18:03 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 18:15 ` John W. Linville @ 2010-04-27 19:12 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-27 19:13 ` John W. Linville 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-27 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gertjan van Wingerde, John Linville; +Cc: Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless Am Dienstag 27 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > On 04/27/10 08:28, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Am Montag 26 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > >> On 04/26/10 13:48, Helmut Schaa wrote: > >>> Restore the rfcsr initialization for RT305x SoC devices which was removed > >>> by "rt2x00: Finish rt3070 support in rt2800 register initialization.". > >>> > >>> This fixes the rx path on SoC devices. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >>> 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > >>> index 2648f31..1358d9a 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c > >>> @@ -1703,7 +1703,8 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > >>> if (!rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) && > >>> !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3071) && > >>> !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3090) && > >>> - !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390)) > >>> + !rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3390) && > >>> + !(rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) && rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872))) > >>> return 0; > >> > >> As indicated in the separate email, we should also check for the presence of an RF3020, RF3021 > >> or RF3022 RF chipset for the RT2872 case (maybe this should be more generic, because I'm sure > >> this will also hold for the other RT chipsets). > > > > Ok, do you mean we should only check for rfXXX instead of checking for SoC > > and rt2872? Or should we check for SoC + rfXXX? > > I think that at the moment we should be looking at checking for SoC, RT2872 and RFxxxx. > To be honest I don't completely know what these RF CSR values represent, we can only find them > in a SoC Ralink driver, so FWIW it may simply be good settings for an AP (the main use case for > a SoC device) but not so good for an STA. > > So properly applying this only to SoC devices with the right RT chipset and right RF chipset > seems to be the proper thing here. > > > > >>> /* > >>> @@ -1771,6 +1772,37 @@ int rt2800_init_rfcsr(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev) > >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x8f); > >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 30, 0x20); > >>> rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x0f); > >>> + } else if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872)) { > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 0, 0x50); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 1, 0x01); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 2, 0xf7); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 3, 0x75); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 4, 0x40); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 5, 0x03); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 6, 0x02); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 7, 0x50); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 8, 0x39); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 9, 0x0f); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 10, 0x60); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 11, 0x21); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 12, 0x75); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 13, 0x75); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 14, 0x90); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 15, 0x58); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 16, 0xb3); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 17, 0x92); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 18, 0x2c); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 19, 0x02); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 20, 0xba); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 21, 0xdb); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 22, 0x00); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 23, 0x31); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 24, 0x08); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 25, 0x01); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 26, 0x25); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 27, 0x23); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 28, 0x13); > >>> + rt2800_rfcsr_write(rt2x00dev, 29, 0x83); > >>> } > >>> > >>> if (rt2x00_rt_rev_lt(rt2x00dev, RT3070, REV_RT3070F)) { > >> > >> Here we need 2 additional rfcsr_writes, for RF CSR 30 and RF CSR 31, both set to value 0x00. > >> Also, we can add an "return 0" at the end of the sequence, as nothing more needs to be done for RT2872. > > > > Ok, thanks for looking that up. > > And please add the rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev) test to that hunk as well. It makes it easier to see that > that piece is for SoC RT2872 devices only. Agreed, will send a followup tomorrow. And thanks for checking the Ralink SoC driver. > P.S. It seems that John already applied this patch without even Ivo or me Acking it, so I guess an > incremental patch would be best now. Yeah, but the patch doesn't break anything for PCI and USB devices and since not many people use the SoC code yet it's no drama ;). John, would you like me to send a followup patch or would you like to revert that one and apply a fixed one? Thanks, Helmut ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices 2010-04-27 19:12 ` Helmut Schaa @ 2010-04-27 19:13 ` John W. Linville 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Linville @ 2010-04-27 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Helmut Schaa; +Cc: Gertjan van Wingerde, Ivo van Doorn, linux-wireless On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 09:12:26PM +0200, Helmut Schaa wrote: > Am Dienstag 27 April 2010 schrieb Gertjan van Wingerde: > John, would you like me to send a followup patch or would you like to > revert that one and apply a fixed one? Follow-up patch, please...thanks! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-27 19:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-04-26 11:48 [PATCH] rt2x00: rt2800lib: Fix rx path on SoC devices Helmut Schaa 2010-04-26 19:55 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-26 19:56 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-26 21:46 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 6:28 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-27 18:03 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 18:15 ` John W. Linville 2010-04-27 19:41 ` Gertjan van Wingerde 2010-04-27 19:12 ` Helmut Schaa 2010-04-27 19:13 ` John W. Linville
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).