Re: [PATCH V3] rt2x00: remove MCU requests for SoC platforms

[Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@gmail.com>]

Luis,

On 04/01/10 23:14, Luis Correia wrote:
> The ralink SoC platforms do not have an MCU.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Luis Correia <luis.f.correia@gmail.com>

I know Ivo already acked the v2 version of the patch, but isn't the
addition of a driver flag a bit overkill?

We have the test on whether the platform is SOC w.r.t. MCU requests
in 2 places, and both of them are in rt2800 code. I do not really see
a need to clutter the global rt2x00 space with a rt2800 specific flag,
which is only used in rt2800 code.

> ---
> 
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c   2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800lib.c   2010-04-01
> 13:05:18.249747122 +0100
> @@ -221,9 +221,9 @@
>        u32 reg;
> 
>        /*
> -        * SOC devices don't support MCU requests.
> +        * some devices don't support MCU requests.
>         */
> -       if (rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev))
> +       if (!test_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags))
>                return;
> 
>        mutex_lock(&rt2x00dev->csr_mutex);
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c   2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800pci.c   2010-04-01
> 13:04:42.453621607 +0100
> @@ -59,6 +59,12 @@
>  {
>        unsigned int i;
>        u32 reg;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * some devices don't support MCU requests.
> +        */
> +       if (!test_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags))
> +               return;
> 
>        for (i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
>                rt2800_register_read(rt2x00dev, H2M_MAILBOX_CID, &reg);

So, the minimal patch would be simply this change to rt2800pci, and to have it
test for SoC (via rt2x00_is_soc).

> @@ -1098,10 +1104,12 @@
>        __set_bit(DRIVER_SUPPORT_CONTROL_FILTER_PSPOLL, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> 
>        /*
> -        * This device requires firmware.
> +        * This device requires firmware and MCU access.
>         */
> -       if (!rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev))
> +       if (!rt2x00_is_soc(rt2x00dev)) {
>                __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_FIRMWARE, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> +               __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU, &rt2x00dev->flags);
> +       }
>        __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_DMA, &rt2x00dev->flags);
>        __set_bit(DRIVER_REQUIRE_L2PAD, &rt2x00dev->flags);
>        if (!modparam_nohwcrypt)
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h      2010-03-26
> 18:25:50.000000000 +0000
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2x00.h      2010-04-01
> 13:01:26.812694036 +0100
> @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@
>         * Driver requirements
>         */
>        DRIVER_REQUIRE_FIRMWARE,
> +       DRIVER_REQUIRE_MCU,
>        DRIVER_REQUIRE_BEACON_GUARD,
>        DRIVER_REQUIRE_ATIM_QUEUE,
>        DRIVER_REQUIRE_DMA,

If we choose to have the flag anyways:
>From a naming point of view, this name is aligned with the other flags.
However, from a usage point of view it would be better to have a flag
DRIVER_NO_MCU, so we don't have to have the negative tests above, and
have no tests at all that determine if MCU is allowed.

---
Gertjan.