Re: [PATCH 3/9] rt2x00: Align RT chipset definitions with vendor driver.

[Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>]

Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> On 2010-04-09 1:32 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
> > Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> >> On 2010-04-09 7:10 AM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> >> > On 04/09/10 00:28, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-04-08 11:50 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> >> >>> Only include definitions for RT chipsets that are also used inside the
> >> >>> Ralink vendor drivers.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@gmail.com>
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>>  drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c |   13 -------------
> >> >>>  drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h    |    7 +++----
> >> >>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >> >>> index 394c8e4..4bc7e09 100644
> >> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c
> >> >>> @@ -1209,10 +1209,7 @@ int rt2800_init_registers(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> >> >>>  	rt2x00_set_field32(&reg, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_MPDU, AGGREGATION_SIZE);
> >> >>>  	if ((rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2872) &&
> >> >>>  	     (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) >= RT2880E_VERSION)) ||
> >> >>> -	    rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2880) ||
> >> >>>  	    rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2883) ||
> >> >>> -	    rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT2890) ||
> >> >>> -	    rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052) ||
> >> >>>  	    (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3070) &&
> >> >>>  	     (rt2x00_rev(rt2x00dev) < RT3070_VERSION)))
> >> >>>  		rt2x00_set_field32(&reg, MAX_LEN_CFG_MAX_PSDU, 2);
> >> >>> @@ -1511,12 +1508,6 @@ int rt2800_init_bbp(struct rt2x00_dev *rt2x00dev)
> >> >>>  		rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 105, 0x05);
> >> >>>  	}
> >> >>>  
> >> >>> -	if (rt2x00_rt(rt2x00dev, RT3052)) {
> >> >>> -		rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 31, 0x08);
> >> >>> -		rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 78, 0x0e);
> >> >>> -		rt2800_bbp_write(rt2x00dev, 80, 0x08);
> >> >>> -	}
> >> >>> -
> >> >> Why are you removing support for RT3052? IMHO those writes were
> >> >> necessary, last time I tested the rt2800pci code on the RT3052 WiSoC.
> >> > 
> >> > That is because I have not been able to find them in any of the Ralink vendor drivers.
> >> > Actually, none of the Ralink vendor drivers mention an RT chipset that identifies itself
> >> > as a RT3052. The only mentioning Ive seen is RT305x devices that identify themselves as
> >> > RT2872 devices, but even for them I haven't found these BBP initializations.
> >> > That's why I removed this part.
> >> > 
> >> > I have no problem re-instating this if I can find some evidence that these devices
> >> > actually exist.
> >> These chipsets won't show up in STA-only drivers, because they belong to
> >> embedded APs. If you download GPL sources for devices such as ASUS
> >> RT-N15 you will find ifdefs for CONFIG_RALINK_RT3052 and the above
> >> values in BBPRegTable in the driver sources.
> >> I have a few devices based on RT3052, which is why I added this code.
> >> At some point I even had basic Rx/Tx working on it, but haven't tested
> >> in a while.
> > 
> > I also couldn't find any evidence of the existence of an 3052 _rt_ chipset.
> > However, the ralink drivers defines a 3052 _rf_ chip:
> > 
> > #define RFIC_3052                   9       // 2.4G/5G 2T2R
> RT3052 is the name of the whole WiSoC chip, not just the MAC or RF part
> of it. Since wifi is integrated in the SoC, I don't think there is a
> separate name for just the wifi part.

There is. I have one 3052 and one 3050 board (basically a 3052 but only
1T1R), and both identify themselves as RT2872 with different rf "chips"
(of course, there are no additional chips). Hence, the check for RT3052
was never true on both platforms.

> > I don't have such an rf chip in my devices but I don't think the BPP
> > register setup should depend on the actual rf chip. So, if the register
> > setup is really needed we should maybe check for rt2x00_is_soc instead
> > of removing the code?
> Yes, but rt2x00_is_soc() is not enough, since RT2880 is also SoC, but
> slightly different compared to RT3052. I've only tested RT3052 myself.

Right. So, from what I've seen so far it seems like all 305x boards identify
themselves as rt2872. Hence, we can just replace 3052 with 2872 in the above
check and leave the code as is.

Helmut