On 9 October 2014 11:46, Arend van Spriel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/09/14 11:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> >> On 9 October 2014 10:37, Rafał Miłecki<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> + /* TODO: Fix the condition. Only for boards>= P250 */ >>> + if (ai_get_chip_id(wlc_hw->sih) == BCMA_CHIP_ID_BCM4313&& >>> (wlc_hw->boardflags& BFL_FEM_BT)) { >>> + pr_info("Applying BCM4313 WL/BT workaround\n"); >>> + ai_btcombo_p250_4313_war(wlc_hw->sih); >>> + } >> >> >> This of course have to be checked in some hardware documentation for >> the correct condition. We already have some workaround (right above >> the newly added code) for boards with boardrev>= 0x1250. So my guess >> is the code I added applies to some other cards. The board this patch >> is supposed to fix is: >> board vendor: 14e4 >> board type: 608 >> board revision: 1109 >> board flags: 402201 >> board flags2: 884 >> firmware revision: 262032c >> >> So whatever condition we will need it'll likely need to cover above >> case (maybe boardrev == 0x1109?). > > > Well, there is something fishy going on. The brcmsmac code looks like: > > if (bfl & BFL_FEM && chip == 4313) { > if (!(boardrev >= 0x1250 && bfl & BFL_FEM_BT)) > ai_epa_4313war(wlc_hw->sih); > }
Ohh, I didn't notice this negation at the beginning... Now meaning of my functions makes more sense. The old code it only for boardrev < 0x1250 (plus other conditions). This new function has "p250" in its name, that may mean it's for boardrev >= 0x1250. > However the boardflags above (0x402201) only has BFL_FEM_BT set so this code > is never called. I have to ask if !BFL_FEM && BFL_FEM_BT is a valid > combination. Yeah, that's fishy. Maybe that new function ai_btcombo_p250_4313_war should be called if !BFL_FEM && BFL_FEM_BT? But it sounds weird. -- Rafał -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
