On 01/06/2010 09:50 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 January 2010 16:40:32 Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> b43: N-PHY: implement b43_nphy_stay_carrier_search and it's calls
>
> Hm, The phrase "stay carrier earch" doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
> Is "stray carrier search" or something like that meant?
> Not that I care much, but I'm just wondering if this is just a typo.
"stay in carrier search"
>
>> +static void b43_nphy_write_clip_detection(struct b43_wldev *dev, u16 *vals)
>
> We know that these values are the clip thresholds, so use a better variable
> name, please.
>
>> +{
>> + b43_phy_write(dev, B43_NPHY_C1_CLIP1THRES, vals[0]);
>> + b43_phy_write(dev, B43_NPHY_C2_CLIP1THRES, vals[1]);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void b43_nphy_read_clip_detection(struct b43_wldev *dev, u16 *vals)
>> +{
>> + vals[0] = b43_phy_read(dev, B43_NPHY_C1_CLIP1THRES);
>> + vals[1] = b43_phy_read(dev, B43_NPHY_C2_CLIP1THRES);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static u16 b43_nphy_classifier(struct b43_wldev *dev, u16 mask, u16 val)
>> +{
>> + u16 tmp;
>> + bool suspended = false;
>> +
>> + if (dev->dev->id.revision == 16 && dev->mac_suspended == 0) {
>
> Do not check for mac_suspended==0 here. b43_mac_suspended does this
> internally.
>
>> + b43_mac_suspend(dev);
>> + suspended = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + tmp = b43_phy_read(dev, B43_NPHY_CLASSCTL);
>> + tmp &= (B43_NPHY_CLASSCTL_CCKEN | B43_NPHY_CLASSCTL_OFDMEN |
>> + B43_NPHY_CLASSCTL_WAITEDEN);
>> + tmp &= ~mask;
>> + tmp |= (val & mask);
>> + b43_phy_maskset(dev, B43_NPHY_CLASSCTL, 0xFFF8, tmp);
>> +
>> + if (suspended)
>> + b43_mac_enable(dev);
>> +
>> + return tmp;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void b43_nphy_stay_carrier_search(struct b43_wldev *dev, bool enable)
>> +{
>> + struct b43_phy *phy = &dev->phy;
>> + struct b43_phy_n *nphy = phy->n;
>> +
>> + if (enable) {
>> + u16 clip[] = { 0xFFFF, 0xFFFF };
>> + if (nphy->deaf_count++ == 0) {
>> + nphy->classifier_state = b43_nphy_classifier(dev, 0, 0);
>> + b43_nphy_classifier(dev, 0x7, 0);
>> + b43_nphy_read_clip_detection(dev, nphy->clip_state);
>> + b43_nphy_write_clip_detection(dev, clip);
>> + }
>> + b43_nphy_reset_cca(dev);
>> + } else {
>> + if (--nphy->deaf_count != 0) {
>
> If this test logic correct? The following would make more sense to me:
>
> if (--nphy->deaf_count == 0) {
It should be == 0. Specs match Broadcom code.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
