RE: rtl8822cs, mainline 6.16-rc7: kernel reports ' unsupported rf path'

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Piotr Oniszczuk <piotr.oniszczuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wiadomość napisana przez Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> w dniu 23 lip 2025, o godz. 10:19:
> >
> > working state:
> >   rtw88: rtw_chip_parameter_setup:1859 hal->chip_version=0x493d30ea
> > non-working state:
> >   rtw88: rtw_chip_parameter_setup:1859 hal->chip_version=0x303030ea
> >
> > I'd try to read more times to see if it can become correct...
> > Also, I force to use correct value at the last iteration to see if it
> > can work even incorrect value of register 0xF0.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> > index fa0ed39cb199..137418d1108d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/main.c
> > @@ -1858,9 +1861,14 @@ static int rtw_chip_parameter_setup(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev)
> >                return -EINVAL;
> >        }
> >
> > -       hal->chip_version = rtw_read32(rtwdev, REG_SYS_CFG1);
> > +       for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
> > +       hal->chip_version = i == 19 ? 0x493d30ea : rtw_read32(rtwdev, REG_SYS_CFG1);
> >        hal->cut_version = BIT_GET_CHIP_VER(hal->chip_version);
> >        hal->mp_chip = (hal->chip_version & BIT_RTL_ID) ? 0 : 1;
> > +       printk("rtw88: %s:%d hal->chip_version=0x%x\n",
> > +               __func__, __LINE__, hal->chip_version);
> > +       mdelay(100);
> > +       }
> >        if (hal->chip_version & BIT_RF_TYPE_ID) {
> >                hal->rf_type = RF_2T2R;
> >                hal->rf_path_num = 2;
> >
> >
> 
> well - with above patch all starts to work well :-)
> 10 boots, 10 working wifi with correct scans.

Good.

> 
> demsg from working sys: https://termbin.com/bhs4

Unfortunately, the log said:
first read:
  rtw88: rtw_chip_parameter_setup:1860 hal->chip_version=0x303030ea
2nd~19th read:
  rtw88: rtw_chip_parameter_setup:1860 hal->chip_version=0x30303030

Not sure if I can use this pattern to make a workaround. I think the better
way would be to use firmware report to fix this. I'll try to make a patch
and get back to you soon.