[RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey

[RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey

[Christian Lamparter]

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.
---
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 };
+	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++) {
 		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;

Re: [RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey

[Benoit PAPILLAULT]

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

Re: [RFT] ar9170: implement get_survey

[Christian Lamparter]

On Wednesday 28 April 2010 00:21:20 Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> 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.
Naaa, If it was, It would have started with [PATCH] :-D
As you pointed out at the end, there is still some important 
work left on the TODO.

> > ---
> > 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.
I several files full of #defines for the RF,BB and MAC (and USB) in carl9170.
But I don't want to do mix those, because not all registers in those 
files have been verified & tested yet. 
So I copied the magics values from the original firmware...

> > +	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?
ah, I think that's because the first CCA & EXT_CCA values are the
combinded result of both chains (might have something to do with
Smart Antenna and Maximal Ratio Combining techniques, whoever
I can't give you any reference for that, simply because most
of the papers I have are from Atheros' marketing department ;-) )

Also, this is not a hot path. We can easily save all calibration
results and make them accessible through the debug interface together
with other phy/rf related variables (e.g.: mib counters and ani registers)

> 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.
True, but hey we've reported these noise figures for a very long time now
and no one complained, so the delta can't be that important in RL :-D.
Of course we could also initiate another NF calibration right here,
but due to the number of people reporting PHY problems with ar9170,
I'm somewhat nervous about that.

Regards,
	Chr