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

[Gabor Juhos <juhosg@openwrt.org>]

Luis Correia írta:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 13:26, Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org> wrote:
>> On 2010-04-09 2:23 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Back when I tested it, I forced the chip to identify itself as RT3052 by
>> taking the id from the platform device.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>> OK, if that doesn't conflict with any PCI based stuff...
> 
> I have a rt2880 based SOC device, my main AP Minitar, I'll hook up the
> console to it and report what RT-RF chipset combination it has.

The ASUS RT-N15 says this:

root@OpenWrt:/# cat /proc/cpuinfo
system type             : Ralink RT2880   id:2 rev:1
machine                 : Asus RT-N15
processor               : 0
cpu model               : MIPS 4KEc V6.12
BogoMIPS                : 266.24
wait instruction        : yes
microsecond timers      : yes
tlb_entries             : 16
extra interrupt vector  : yes
hardware watchpoint     : yes, count: 0, address/irw mask: []
ASEs implemented        : mips16
shadow register sets    : 1
core                    : 0
VCED exceptions         : not available
VCEI exceptions         : not available

root@OpenWrt:/# cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/rt2800pci/chipset
rt chip:        2872
rf chip:        0001
revision:       0200

register        base    words   wordsize
csr     4096    512     4
eeprom  0       136     2
bbp     0       128     1
rf      4       4       4
root@OpenWrt:/#

-Gabor