From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.nic.cz ([2001:1488:800:400::400]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.89 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1eYMkh-0007uH-HR for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:01:30 +0000 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 03:00:44 +0100 From: Marek Behun Subject: Re: QCA6174 SDIO support? Message-ID: <20180108030044.3f5e575a@nic.cz> In-Reply-To: <37ba258c-77f6-eb05-0d50-5ecab93cf040@dd-wrt.com> References: <20180108012851.389d37c7@nic.cz> <37ba258c-77f6-eb05-0d50-5ecab93cf040@dd-wrt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Sebastian Gottschall Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org This branch is almost the same as mine (orig + high latency patches + sdio patches), therefore no QCA6174 SDIO node in ath10k_hw_params_list. On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 02:31:59 +0100 Sebastian Gottschall wrote: > try this branch > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/log/?h=ath10k-pending-sdio-usb > > Am 08.01.2018 um 01:28 schrieb Marek Behun: > > Hello, > > > > we at CZ.NIC are trying the current ath10k driver with High Latency > > + SDIO support (which was done by Silex Technology) on our board. > > The supported chip, QCA9377, works, but we only have 1x1 MIMO > > boards with this chip. We are trying to get it work with 8274B-SR > > (QCA6174) > > ( http://www.fn-link.com/a-b-g-n-ac-wi-fi-bt-module/8274b-sr.html ) > > > > There is already some code in sdio.c mentoining QCA6174, but there > > are no nodes in ath10k_hw_params. Because QCA6174 is supported via > > PCI bus, I tried to write the ath10k_hw_params node (see patch > > http://blackhole.sk/~kabel/src/qca6174.patch ) but do not know if > > the changes I did are enough, because the driver fails after loading > > firmware. > > > > And the firmware is another point: Does board-sdio.bin have to be > > different from board.bin? Do we have to create this binary > > ourselves, or should the 8274B-SR board manufacturer sent us one? > > (We didn't receive anything from fn-link.) > > > > Any information is good, please let us know even if you have NDA on > > this and therefore cannot give any more information about this. > > > > Thank you. > > > > Marek Behun, CZ.NIC > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ath10k mailing list > > ath10k@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k > > > _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k