[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9d971d4c-8bad-75a5-5b69-d10082d5f2ab@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 14:24:57 -0400
From: Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com>
To: Chris Chiu <chiu@...lessm.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Upstreaming Team <linux@...lessm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rtl8xxxu: Fix wifi low signal strength issue of
RTL8723BU
On 7/4/19 10:27 PM, Chris Chiu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:43 AM Jes Sorensen <jes.sorensen@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/4/19 6:55 AM, Chris Chiu wrote:
>>> The WiFi tx power of RTL8723BU is extremely low after booting. So
>>> the WiFi scan gives very limited AP list and it always fails to
>>> connect to the selected AP. This module only supports 1x1 antenna
>>> and the antenna is switched to bluetooth due to some incorrect
>>> register settings.
>>>
>>> Compare with the vendor driver https://github.com/lwfinger/rtl8723bu,
>>> we realized that the 8723bu's enable_rf() does the same thing as
>>> rtw_btcoex_HAL_Initialize() in vendor driver. And it by default
>>> sets the antenna path to BTC_ANT_PATH_BT which we verified it's
>>> the cause of the wifi weak tx power. The vendor driver will set
>>> the antenna path to BTC_ANT_PATH_PTA in the consequent btcoexist
>>> mechanism, by the function halbtc8723b1ant_PsTdma.
>>>
>>> This commit hand over the antenna control to PTA(Packet Traffic
>>> Arbitration), which compares the weight of bluetooth/wifi traffic
>>> then determine whether to continue current wifi traffic or not.
>>> After PTA take control, The wifi signal will be back to normal and
>>> the bluetooth scan can also work at the same time. However, the
>>> btcoexist still needs to be handled under different circumstances.
>>> If there's a BT connection established, the wifi still fails to
>>> connect until BT disconnected.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Chiu <chiu@...lessm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> v2:
>>> - Replace BIT(11) with the descriptive definition
>>> - Meaningful comment for the REG_S0S1_PATH_SWITCH setting
>>>
>>>
>>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8723b.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 3 ++-
>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8723b.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8723b.c
>>> index 3adb1d3d47ac..ceffe05bd65b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8723b.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8723b.c
>>> @@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ static void rtl8723b_enable_rf(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv)
>>> /*
>>> * WLAN action by PTA
>>> */
>>> - rtl8xxxu_write8(priv, REG_WLAN_ACT_CONTROL_8723B, 0x04);
>>> + rtl8xxxu_write8(priv, REG_WLAN_ACT_CONTROL_8723B, 0x0c);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * BT select S0/S1 controlled by WiFi
>>> @@ -1568,9 +1568,14 @@ static void rtl8723b_enable_rf(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv)
>>> rtl8xxxu_gen2_h2c_cmd(priv, &h2c, sizeof(h2c.ant_sel_rsv));
>>>
>>> /*
>>> - * 0x280, 0x00, 0x200, 0x80 - not clear
>>> + * Different settings per different antenna position.
>>> + * Antenna Position: | Normal Inverse
>>> + * --------------------------------------------------
>>> + * Antenna switch to BT: | 0x280, 0x00
>>> + * Antenna switch to WiFi: | 0x0, 0x280
>>> + * Antenna switch to PTA: | 0x200, 0x80
>>> */
>>> - rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_S0S1_PATH_SWITCH, 0x00);
>>> + rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_S0S1_PATH_SWITCH, 0x80);
>>
>> Per the documentation, shouldn't this be set to 0x200 then rather than 0x80?
>>
> Per the code before REG_S0S1_PATH_SWITCH setting, the driver has told
> the co-processor the antenna is inverse.
> memset(&h2c, 0, sizeof(struct h2c_cmd));
> h2c.ant_sel_rsv.cmd = H2C_8723B_ANT_SEL_RSV;
> h2c.ant_sel_rsv.ant_inverse = 1;
> h2c.ant_sel_rsv.int_switch_type = 0;
> rtl8xxxu_gen2_h2c_cmd(priv, &h2c, sizeof(h2c.ant_sel_rsv));
>
> At least the current modification is consistent with the antenna
> inverse setting.
> I'll verify on vendor driver about when/how the inverse be determined.
Fair enough :)
Cheers,
Jes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists