From: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@free.fr>
To: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:21:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BD76360.2070005@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201004272323.22107.chunkeey@googlemail.com>
Christian Lamparter a écrit :
> This patch adds a basic get_survey for ar9170.
>
> Survey data from wlan1
> frequency: 2412 MHz
> noise: -85 dBm
>
> TODO:
> Currently, the noise level is updated only by a channel change.
> Now, we could simply add another ar9170_set_channel to always get
> a fresh result, but then we risk a RF lockup.
>
It seems to be a good start. The code is very similar to what is used in
ath9k. Just few questions below.
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/ar9170.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/ar9170.h
> index dc662b7..26fa31e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/ar9170.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/ar9170.h
> @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ struct ar9170 {
>
> /* PHY */
> struct ieee80211_channel *channel;
> - int noise[4];
> + int noise[6];
>
> /* power calibration data */
> u8 power_5G_leg[4];
> @@ -302,5 +302,5 @@ int ar9170_init_phy(struct ar9170 *ar, enum ieee80211_band band);
> int ar9170_init_rf(struct ar9170 *ar);
> int ar9170_set_channel(struct ar9170 *ar, struct ieee80211_channel *channel,
> enum ar9170_rf_init_mode rfi, enum ar9170_bw bw);
> -
> +int ar9170_get_noisefloor(struct ar9170 *ar);
> #endif /* __AR9170_H */
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/main.c
> index 3247db8..1e422ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/main.c
> @@ -2485,6 +2485,25 @@ static int ar9170_ampdu_action(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int ar9170_op_get_survey(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, int idx,
> + struct survey_info *survey)
> +{
> + struct ar9170 *ar = hw->priv;
> + int err;
> +
> + if (idx != 0)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + err = ar9170_get_noisefloor(ar);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + survey->channel = ar->channel;
> + survey->filled = SURVEY_INFO_NOISE_DBM;
> + survey->noise = ar->noise[0];
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct ieee80211_ops ar9170_ops = {
> .start = ar9170_op_start,
> .stop = ar9170_op_stop,
> @@ -2501,6 +2520,7 @@ static const struct ieee80211_ops ar9170_ops = {
> .sta_add = ar9170_sta_add,
> .sta_remove = ar9170_sta_remove,
> .get_stats = ar9170_get_stats,
> + .get_survey = ar9170_op_get_survey,
> .ampdu_action = ar9170_ampdu_action,
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
> index 45a415e..31ff163 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ar9170/phy.c
> @@ -1584,6 +1584,31 @@ static int ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(u32 raw_noise)
> return (raw_noise & 0xff) >> 1;
> }
>
> +int ar9170_get_noisefloor(struct ar9170 *ar)
> +{
> + static const u32 phy_regs[] = {
> + 0x1c5864, 0x1c6864, 0x1c7864,
> + 0x1c59bc, 0x1c69bc, 0x1c79bc };
>
Maybe #define would be more appropriate. Moreover, it's clear in my
notes that some ar9170 registers are just ath9k registers + 0x1bc000.
> + u32 phy_res[ARRAY_SIZE(phy_regs)];
> + int err, i;
> +
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(phy_regs) != ARRAY_SIZE(ar->noise));
> +
> + err = ar9170_read_mreg(ar, ARRAY_SIZE(phy_regs), phy_regs, phy_res);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phy_regs); i++) {
> + ar->noise[i] = ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(
> + (phy_res[i] >> 19) & 0x1ff);
> +
> + ar->noise[i + 3] = ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(
> + (phy_res[i + 3] >> 23) & 0x1ff);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> int ar9170_set_channel(struct ar9170 *ar, struct ieee80211_channel *channel,
> enum ar9170_rf_init_mode rfi, enum ar9170_bw bw)
> {
> @@ -1708,12 +1733,12 @@ int ar9170_set_channel(struct ar9170 *ar, struct ieee80211_channel *channel,
> }
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
>
Why using 3 RX channels ? ar9170 is always 2x2, isn't it ? And why read
3 values since only one will be used in ar9170_op_get_survey?
Maybe we should combine the 3 values before reporting a single value ?
> ar->noise[i] = ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(
> - (le32_to_cpu(vals[2 + i]) >> 19) & 0x1ff);
> + (le32_to_cpu(vals[i + 1]) >> 19) & 0x1ff);
>
> - ar->noise[i + 2] = ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(
> - (le32_to_cpu(vals[5 + i]) >> 23) & 0x1ff);
> + ar->noise[i + 3] = ar9170_calc_noise_dbm(
> + (le32_to_cpu(vals[i + 4]) >> 23) & 0x1ff);
> }
>
> ar->channel = channel;
>
Moreover (but my patch for ath9k has the very same error), I think we
are reported the noise floor calibration result which is not the noise
at all... that might be another story anyway.
Regards,
Benoit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-27 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-27 21:23 [RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey Christian Lamparter
2010-04-27 22:21 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT [this message]
2010-04-28 15:56 ` Christian Lamparter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BD76360.2070005@free.fr \
--to=benoit.papillault@free.fr \
--cc=chunkeey@googlemail.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).