[RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Alexander Aring]

This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
by the rzusb stick.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Cc: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
---
 drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
index 1e18774..5b6bb9a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static int atusb_get_and_show_chip(struct atusb *atusb)
 			man_id_1, man_id_0);
 		goto fail;
 	}
-	if (part_num != 3) {
+	if (part_num != 3 && part_num != 2) {
 		dev_err(&usb_dev->dev,
 			"unexpected transceiver, part 0x%02x version 0x%02x\n",
 			part_num, version_num);
-- 
2.4.1

Re: [RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Alexander Aring]

Stefan,

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
> by the rzusb stick.
> 

is it okay to apply this patch for mainline for now? Then it's only a
question to make _better_ patches for the atusb firmware. Werner told me
that I should remove the a lot of ifdefs or we landing in a ifdef hell
which is like a well known IoT-OS and that's true. Was a dirty hack.

If it's okay then I will send a patch again.

- Alex

Re: [RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On 27/05/15 08:54, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Alexander Aring wrote:
>> This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
>> by the rzusb stick.
>>
> is it okay to apply this patch for mainline for now?
Yes, just send my reviewed-by for it. (You already want acked-by for 
this driver for me? I guess I wait until I send a patch to the 
maintainers file)

> Then it's only a
> question to make _better_ patches for the atusb firmware. Werner told me
> that I should remove the a lot of ifdefs or we landing in a ifdef hell
> which is like a well known IoT-OS and that's true. Was a dirty hack.

I have yet to look at the firmware patches but if Werner already 
suggested some changes they should be taken into account. Especially if 
this would let us to ifdef hell. :)

I was really happy to see the raven avr stick patches. This will extend 
the potential userbase for atusb and ieee802154 quite a bit. Thanks for 
working on this.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On 24/05/15 14:43, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
> by the rzusb stick.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> Cc: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> index 1e18774..5b6bb9a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static int atusb_get_and_show_chip(struct atusb *atusb)
>   			man_id_1, man_id_0);
>   		goto fail;
>   	}
> -	if (part_num != 3) {
> +	if (part_num != 3 && part_num != 2) {
>   		dev_err(&usb_dev->dev,
>   			"unexpected transceiver, part 0x%02x version 0x%02x\n",
>   			part_num, version_num);

Reviewed-by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>

regards
Stefan Schmidt

Re: [RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Alexander Aring]

Hi Stefan,

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42:55AM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 24/05/15 14:43, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
> >by the rzusb stick.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> >Cc: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
> >---
> >  drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> >index 1e18774..5b6bb9a 100644
> >--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
> >@@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static int atusb_get_and_show_chip(struct atusb *atusb)
> >  			man_id_1, man_id_0);
> >  		goto fail;
> >  	}
> >-	if (part_num != 3) {
> >+	if (part_num != 3 && part_num != 2) {
> >  		dev_err(&usb_dev->dev,
> >  			"unexpected transceiver, part 0x%02x version 0x%02x\n",
> >  			part_num, version_num);
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
> 

is this patch okay, even when it's the same product id? Possible
"stronger" test would be to check if atusb then part_num != 3, if rzusb
then != 2. Or can we add support for this later?

- Alex

Re: [RFC bluetooth-next] atusb: add support for at86rf230

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On 27/05/15 13:46, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42:55AM +0200, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 24/05/15 14:43, Alexander Aring wrote:
>>> This patch adds support for the at86rf230 version check which is used
>>> by the rzusb stick.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
>>> index 1e18774..5b6bb9a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/atusb.c
>>> @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ static int atusb_get_and_show_chip(struct atusb *atusb)
>>>   			man_id_1, man_id_0);
>>>   		goto fail;
>>>   	}
>>> -	if (part_num != 3) {
>>> +	if (part_num != 3 && part_num != 2) {
>>>   		dev_err(&usb_dev->dev,
>>>   			"unexpected transceiver, part 0x%02x version 0x%02x\n",
>>>   			part_num, version_num);
>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@osg.samsung.com>
>>
> is this patch okay, even when it's the same product id? Possible
> "stronger" test would be to check if atusb then part_num != 3, if rzusb
> then != 2. Or can we add support for this later?
Yes, we can get this in like it is right now. That enables you and maybe 
others to work with it.

Once we have a separate product id for rzusb we can adjust the checking 
here and also print out on what hardware (atusb or rzusb) we are running 
on. But that can wait until we have the firmware things sorted out for it.

regards
Stefan Schmidt

> - Alex