On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:57:06PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Oleksij Rempel <li...@rempel-privat.de> 
>> wrote:
>> >> +Optional properties:
>> >> +- reg: Address and length of the register set for the device.
>> >> +- qca,clk-25mhz: Defines that a 25MHz clock is used
>> >
>> > Some SoCs even Atheros WiSoCs use WiFi clock for System Clock. In this
>> > case we need to use clock framework any way, so why not in this case too?
>> > Provide dummy static clock in DT and connect it with this node?
>> >
>> >         osc25m: oscillator {
>> >                 compatible = "fixed-clock";
>> >                 #clock-cells = <0>;
>> >                 clock-frequency = <25000000>;
>> >                 clock-accuracy = <30000>;
>> >         };
>> >
>> >         acc: clock-controller@80040000 {
>> >                 compatible = "some-clock-controller";
>> >                 #clock-cells = <1>;
>> >                 clocks = <&osc25m>;
>> >                 reg = <0x80040000 0x204>;
>> >         };
>> >
>> >
>> > &pci0 {
>> >         ath9k@168c,002d {
>> >                 compatible = "pci168c,002d";
>> >                 reg = <0x7000 0 0 0 0x1000>;
>> >                 clocks = <&osc25m>;
>> >                 qca,disable-5ghz;
>> >         };
>> > };
>> >
>> >
>> > driver will need to use clk_get and compare frequency instead of
>> > of_property_read_bool(np, "qca,clk-25mhz"). In this case you will need
>> > to define source clock only one time and reuse it by all affected DT
>> > nodes. If we have 40MHz clock you will only need to change it in
>> > fixed-clock.
>> that does sound like a good idea, thanks for that input!
>> However, I will remove the property for the first version because I am
>> trying to get PCI(e) devices supported. OF support for AHB (WiSoC)
>> needs more work (in other places, like ahb.c) anyways.
>> But this suggestion should be remembered!
>>
>> >> +- qca,no-eeprom: Indicates that there is no physical EEPROM connected to 
>> >> the
>> >> +                     ath9k wireless chip (in this case the calibration /
>> >> +                     EEPROM data will be loaded from userspace using the
>> >> +                     kernel firmware loader).
>> >> +- qca,disable-2ghz: Overrides the settings from the EEPROM and disables 
>> >> the
>> >> +                     2.4GHz band. Setting this property is only needed
>> >> +                     when the RF circuit does not support the 2.4GHz band
>> >> +                     while it is enabled nevertheless in the EEPROM.
>> >> +- qca,disable-5ghz: Overrides the settings from the EEPROM and disables 
>> >> the
>> >> +                     5GHz band. Setting this property is only needed when
>> >> +                     the RF circuit does not support the 5GHz band while
>> >> +                     it is enabled nevertheless in the EEPROM.
>> >
>> > This option can be reused for every WiFi controller. Not only for qca.
>> > So may be instead of adding vendor specific name, make it reusable for
>> > all vendors. Instead of qca,disable-5ghz and qca,disable-2ghz make
>> > disable-5ghz and disable-2ghz?
>
> Fine, but if you do this then document in a common location.
what about Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211-common.txt?

>> I am personally fine with anything that fits best into the grand
>> scheme of things.
>> There are three scenarios I can think of which may be influenced by
>> devicetree configuration:
>> a) let the driver decide automatically whether the 2.4GHz and/or 5GHz
>> band is/are enabled
>> b) explicitly disable either bands (because the driver thinks due to
>> whatever reason that a band is supported while in reality it isn't)
>> c) explicitly enable a band (for example because the driver cannot
>> automagically detect which band should be enabled)
>>
>> for ath9k we default to a) but also allow b): the EEPROM (device
>> specific calibration data) contains information about which bands are
>> enabled (or not). But some manufacturers are shipping devices for
>> example with the 5G band enabled, while the actual hardware doesn't
>> support it.
>
> And you can't determine that based on different device IDs? If you can
> use vendor/device ID, then you should. If not, then this is fine.
one example is the TP-Link TW-8970 which uses a AR9381. ath9k
identifies this chip as AR9380 (probably because both are *very*
similar). The former does not support the 5G band, the latter does
(but unfortunately - even though it's not supported - the EEPROM data
on the TW-8970 indicates that 5G is supported)

> Is it possible to have no EEPROM at all? If so, you might want to just
> put the raw EEPROM data into DT rather than a property for every field
> (I'm assuming there's more than just what you have properties for now).
In theory: yes
However, most devices we are talking about are legacy ones without
devicetree support in the bootloader (in other words: hand-written
.dts files).
_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel

Reply via email to