netdev - RE: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: fixing IQK failures for rtl8192eu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <663e6d79c34f44998a937fe9fbd228e9@realtek.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 00:54:11 +0000
From:   Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To:     JunASAKA <JunASAKA@...040330.moe>,
        "Jes.Sorensen@...il.com" <Jes.Sorensen@...il.com>
CC:     "kvalo@...nel.org" <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: fixing IQK failures for rtl8192eu



> -----Original Message-----
> From: JunASAKA <JunASAKA@...040330.moe>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 10:09 PM
> To: Jes.Sorensen@...il.com
> Cc: kvalo@...nel.org; davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com;
> linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; JunASAKA
> <JunASAKA@...040330.moe>
> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: fixing IQK failures for rtl8192eu
> 
> Fixing "Path A RX IQK failed" and "Path B RX IQK failed"
> issues for rtl8192eu chips by replacing the arguments with
> the ones in the updated official driver.

I think it would be better if you can point out which version you use, and
people will not modify them back to old version suddenly.

> 
> Signed-off-by: JunASAKA <JunASAKA@...040330.moe>
> ---
>  .../realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8192e.c         | 76 +++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8192e.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8192e.c
> index b06508d0cd..82346500f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8192e.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_8192e.c

[...]

> @@ -891,22 +907,28 @@ static int rtl8192eu_iqk_path_b(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv)
> 
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x00000000);
>  	rtl8xxxu_write_rfreg(priv, RF_B, RF6052_REG_UNKNOWN_DF, 0x00180);
> -	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x80800000);
> 
> -	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x00000000);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write_rfreg(priv, RF_B, RF6052_REG_WE_LUT, 0x800a0);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write_rfreg(priv, RF_B, RF6052_REG_RCK_OS, 0x20000);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write_rfreg(priv, RF_B, RF6052_REG_TXPA_G1, 0x0000f);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write_rfreg(priv, RF_B, RF6052_REG_TXPA_G2, 0x07f77);
> +
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x80800000);
> 
> +	// rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x00000000);
> +	// rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_FPGA0_IQK, 0x80800000);
> +

I think this is a test code of vendor driver. No need them here. 


>  	/* Path B IQK setting */
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_TX_IQK_TONE_A, 0x38008c1c);
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_RX_IQK_TONE_A, 0x38008c1c);
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_TX_IQK_TONE_B, 0x18008c1c);
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_RX_IQK_TONE_B, 0x38008c1c);
> 
> -	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_TX_IQK_PI_B, 0x821403e2);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_TX_IQK_PI_B, 0x82140303);
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_RX_IQK_PI_B, 0x68160000);
> 
>  	/* LO calibration setting */
> -	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_IQK_AGC_RSP, 0x00492911);
> +	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_IQK_AGC_RSP, 0x00462911);
> 
>  	/* One shot, path A LOK & IQK */
>  	rtl8xxxu_write32(priv, REG_IQK_AGC_PTS, 0xfa000000);

[...]

I have compared your patch with internal code, and they are the same.
But, I don't have a test.

Ping-Ke