ath9k: add an extra boolean parameter to ath9k_hw_apply_txpower

RFC New Gabor Juhos 3 participants 6 messages Apr 14, 2012 – Apr 15, 2012 Qualcomm Atheros ATH9K wireless driver

Share & tools

Gabor Juhos

author

2012-04-14 15:32 UTC #0 lore raw

RFC 1/2 ath9k: add an extra boolean parameter to ath9k_hw_apply_txpower

In order to unifying regulatory limit handling commit ca2c68cc7bc80fc4504fb420df04cce99c9ee6ec (ath9k_hw: clean up tx power handling) introduced a new helper function 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', and the direct calls of 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower' has been replaced by a call of the helper function.

This caused a change in the behaviour of the 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' function. The purpose of that function is to calculate and store the rate txpower table and the regulatory limit without touching the hardware registers. Before the commit, the 'test' parameter of the function was passed to the 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower'. Now the calling of the 'set_txpower' function happens indirectly through 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', so the 'test' argument of the 'set_txpower' is always 'false'.

This patch restores the original behaviour of 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' by adding a new argument to 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower.'

Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>

Cc Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar5008_phy.c   |    2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_paprd.c |    2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c   |    2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c           |    9 +++++----
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h           |    3 ++-
 5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar5008_phy.c +1 -1

index de30cb3..8753e38 100644
@@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ static int ar5008_hw_process_ini(struct ath_hw *ah,
 	ar5008_hw_set_channel_regs(ah, chan);
 	ar5008_hw_init_chain_masks(ah);
 	ath9k_olc_init(ah);
-	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan);
+	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan, false);
 
 	/* Write analog registers */
 	if (!ath9k_hw_set_rf_regs(ah, chan, freqIndex)) {

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_paprd.c +1 -1

index 59647a3..3d400e8 100644
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ void ar9003_paprd_enable(struct ath_hw *ah, bool val)
 
 	if (val) {
 		ah->paprd_table_write_done = true;
-		ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan);
+		ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan, false);
 	}
 
 	REG_RMW_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_PAPRD_CTRL0_B0,

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ar9003_phy.c +1 -1

index 4c9bc9f..5d2b584 100644
@@ -690,7 +690,7 @@ static int ar9003_hw_process_ini(struct ath_hw *ah,
 	ar9003_hw_override_ini(ah);
 	ar9003_hw_set_channel_regs(ah, chan);
 	ar9003_hw_set_chain_masks(ah, ah->rxchainmask, ah->txchainmask);
-	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan);
+	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan, false);
 
 	if (AR_SREV_9462(ah)) {
 		if (REG_READ_FIELD(ah, AR_PHY_TX_IQCAL_CONTROL_0,

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.c +5 -4

index 6fa8128..480e8f8 100644
@@ -1453,7 +1453,7 @@ static bool ath9k_hw_channel_change(struct ath_hw *ah,
 		return false;
 	}
 	ath9k_hw_set_clockrate(ah);
-	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan);
+	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan, false);
 	ath9k_hw_rfbus_done(ah);
 
 	if (IS_CHAN_OFDM(chan) || IS_CHAN_HT(chan))

@@ -2724,7 +2724,8 @@ static int get_antenna_gain(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan)
 	return ah->eep_ops->get_eeprom(ah, gain_param);
 }
 
-void ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan)
+void ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan,
+			    bool test)
 {
 	struct ath_regulatory *reg = ath9k_hw_regulatory(ah);
 	struct ieee80211_channel *channel;

@@ -2745,7 +2746,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan)
 
 	ah->eep_ops->set_txpower(ah, chan,
 				 ath9k_regd_get_ctl(reg, chan),
-				 ant_reduction, new_pwr, false);
+				 ant_reduction, new_pwr, test);
 }
 
 void ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 limit, bool test)

@@ -2758,7 +2759,7 @@ void ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 limit, bool test)
 	if (test)
 		channel->max_power = MAX_RATE_POWER / 2;
 
-	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan);
+	ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(ah, chan, test);
 
 	if (test)
 		channel->max_power = DIV_ROUND_UP(reg->max_power_level, 2);

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/hw.h +2 -1

index 1d4b983..99b57bd 100644
@@ -976,7 +976,8 @@ void ath9k_hw_name(struct ath_hw *ah, char *hw_name, size_t len);
 /* PHY */
 void ath9k_hw_get_delta_slope_vals(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 coef_scaled,
 				   u32 *coef_mantissa, u32 *coef_exponent);
-void ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan);
+void ath9k_hw_apply_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, struct ath9k_channel *chan,
+			    bool test);
 
 /*
  * Code Specific to AR5008, AR9001 or AR9002,

Signature · 1 line

1.7.2.1

Gabor Juhos

author

2012-04-14 15:32 UTC #1 lore raw

RFC 2/2 ath9k: fix tx power settings for AR9287

The 'ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower' helper function has been introduced by commit a55f858852e4345d0a31af593c46738ca8614bff (ath9k_hw: Cleanup TX power calculation for AR9287).

Updating of the max_power_level value has been moved into the helper function in that change, however the removed code from 'ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower' has not been replaced with a call of the new helper function.

Due to that missing call, retrieving tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmask is not handled properly. During the calculation of the tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmasks the values are reduced. Those reductions must be compensated during retrieving.

Fix this by adding the missing call of the helper function.

Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>

Cc Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>

---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c +2 -0

index f272236..b34e8b2 100644
@@ -824,6 +824,8 @@ static void ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah,
 			regulatory->max_power_level = ratesArray[i];
 	}
 
+	ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower(ah);
+
 	if (test)
 		return;

Signature · 1 line

1.7.2.1

Sujith Manoharan

2012-04-15 01:59 UTC #2 lore raw

RFC 2/2 ath9k: fix tx power settings for AR9287

Quoted 31 lines · Gabor Juhos

The 'ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower' helper function has been introduced by commit a55f858852e4345d0a31af593c46738ca8614bff (ath9k_hw: Cleanup TX power calculation for AR9287).
Updating of the max_power_level value has been moved into the helper function in that change, however the removed code from 'ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower' has not been replaced with a call of the new helper function.
Due to that missing call, retrieving tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmask is not handled properly. During the calculation of the tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmasks the values are reduced. Those reductions must be compensated during retrieving.
Fix this by adding the missing call of the helper function.
Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>
Cc Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c +0 -0
index f272236..b34e8b2 100644

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c static void ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, · line 828

Quoted 5 lines

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c +2 -0

@@ -824,6 +824,8 @@ static void ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah,
 			regulatory->max_power_level = ratesArray[i];
 	}
 
+	ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower(ah);
+

Looks like I got confused between 4K-based cards and AR9287. Thanks for catching this.

Acked-by Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>

Sujith

Gabor Juhos

author

2012-04-15 17:23 UTC #3 lore raw

RFC 2/2 ath9k: fix tx power settings for AR9287

2012.04.15. 3:59 keltez?ssel, Sujith Manoharan ?rta:

Quoted 35 lines

Quoted 34 lines · Gabor Juhos
The 'ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower' helper function has been introduced by commit a55f858852e4345d0a31af593c46738ca8614bff (ath9k_hw: Cleanup TX power calculation for AR9287).
Updating of the max_power_level value has been moved into the helper function in that change, however the removed code from 'ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower' has not been replaced with a call of the new helper function.
Due to that missing call, retrieving tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmask is not handled properly. During the calculation of the tx power for 2x2 and 3x3 chainmasks the values are reduced. Those reductions must be compensated during retrieving.
Fix this by adding the missing call of the helper function.
Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>
Cc Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c +0 -0
index f272236..b34e8b2 100644
@@ -824,6 +824,8 @@ static void ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah,
 			regulatory->max_power_level = ratesArray[i];
 	}
 

Quoted 7 lines

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c static void ath9k_hw_ar9287_set_txpower(struct ath_hw *ah, · line 828
Quoted 2 lines
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom_9287.c +2 -0
+	ath9k_hw_update_regulatory_maxpower(ah);
+
Looks like I got confused between 4K-based cards and AR9287. Thanks for catching this.
Acked-by Sujith Manoharan <[email protected]>

Thanks, I will resend this as a regular patch.

-Gabor

Felix Fietkau

2012-04-15 10:24 UTC #4 lore raw

RFC 1/2 ath9k: add an extra boolean parameter to ath9k_hw_apply_txpower

In reply to Gabor Juhos

Quoted 18 lines · Gabor Juhos

In order to unifying regulatory limit handling commit ca2c68cc7bc80fc4504fb420df04cce99c9ee6ec (ath9k_hw: clean up tx power handling) introduced a new helper function 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', and the direct calls of 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower' has been replaced by a call of the helper function.
This caused a change in the behaviour of the 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' function. The purpose of that function is to calculate and store the rate txpower table and the regulatory limit without touching the hardware registers. Before the commit, the 'test' parameter of the function was passed to the 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower'. Now the calling of the 'set_txpower' function happens indirectly through 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', so the 'test' argument of the 'set_txpower' is always 'false'.

Quoted 6 lines

This patch restores the original behaviour of 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' by adding a new argument to 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower.'
Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>
Cc Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>

Acked-by Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>

Gabor Juhos

author

2012-04-15 17:23 UTC #5 lore raw

RFC 1/2 ath9k: add an extra boolean parameter to ath9k_hw_apply_txpower

2012.04.15. 12:24 keltez?ssel, Felix Fietkau ?rta:

Quoted 19 lines · Gabor Juhos

Quoted 18 lines
In order to unifying regulatory limit handling commit ca2c68cc7bc80fc4504fb420df04cce99c9ee6ec (ath9k_hw: clean up tx power handling) introduced a new helper function 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', and the direct calls of 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower' has been replaced by a call of the helper function.
This caused a change in the behaviour of the 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' function. The purpose of that function is to calculate and store the rate txpower table and the regulatory limit without touching the hardware registers. Before the commit, the 'test' parameter of the function was passed to the 'ah->eep_ops->set_txpower'. Now the calling of the 'set_txpower' function happens indirectly through 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower', so the 'test' argument of the 'set_txpower' is always 'false'.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 6 lines
This patch restores the original behaviour of 'ath9k_hw_set_txpowerlimit' by adding a new argument to 'ath9k_hw_apply_txpower.'
Signed-off-by Gabor Juhos <[email protected]>
Cc Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>
Acked-by Felix Fietkau <[email protected]>

Thanks, I will resend this as a regular patch.

-Gabor