Re: Problems with rtw89 on 5Ghz wlans.

[Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com>]

On 05/10/2026 05:30, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852b.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852b.c
>>>>> index 356623341f65..c9ee3c76cfc9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852b.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/rtw8852b.c
>>>>> @@ -771,6 +771,15 @@ static void rtw8852b_btc_set_rfe(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev)
>>>>>      } else {
>>>>>          md->ant.type = BTC_ANT_SHARED;
>>>>>          md->bt0_pos = BTC_BT_BTG;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        if (md->rfe_type == 41) {
>>>
>>> Use the same quirk by the way.
>>>
>>
>> This was the initial version of the patch. Since then I changed
>> it to check hal->tx_nss and hal->rx_nss, to mirror what the
>> vendor driver does. Is that okay?
> 
> I checked vendor driver. It looks like this:
> 
>         if (phy_hw[0].tx_num == 1 && phy_hw[0].tx_path_num == 2 &&
>                 phy_hw[0].rx_num == 1 && phy_hw[0].rx_path_num == 2) {
> 
>                 if (rfe_type == 41) {
>                         RF_DBG(rf, DBG_RF_INIT, "%s: rfe_type: %d set to 1T1R\n", __func__, rfe_type);
>                         phy_hw[0].tx_path_num = 1;
>                         phy_hw[0].rx_path_num = 1;
>                 } else if (rfe_type == 43) {
>                         RF_DBG(rf, DBG_RF_INIT, "%s: rfe_type: %d set to 1T2R\n", __func__, rfe_type);
>                         phy_hw[0].tx_path_num = 2;
>                         phy_hw[0].rx_path_num = 2;
>                 }
>         }
> 
> I'm not sure the "mirror" you menat. 

I meant the check in rtw8852b_btc_set_rfe(). Originally I checked
rfe_type, then later I went back to the vendor driver and traced
where p->phy_cap[0].txss and p->phy_cap[0].rxss came from, and
replaced the rfe_type check with hal->tx_nss and hal->rx_nss.

> I feel it is okay to check tx_num/tx_patch_num before doing override the values
> at first glance. But think a bit more, it looks like no checking will be also
> okay, because I don't think rfe_type 41 can be another configuration.
> 
> By the way, my thinking of this patch is 
> 
> 1. after reading efuse. If rfe_type 41 --> set a quirk
> 2. by quirk, set BTC
> 3. by quirk, set tx_nss/tx_ant
> 
> With the quirk, it will be easier to understand 2 and 3 related things. 

Sounds good.