The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319230617.GA15035@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319230525.GA14835@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319225133.GA29672@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319225002.GA28673@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305111401.GA25126@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305111216.GA24982@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225020804.GA9428@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225020413.GA8057@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011846.GA2773@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011709.GA601@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011415.GA31868@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011151.GA30675@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225003408.GA28675@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225002746.GA26789@embeddedor
* Refactoring of the device selection algorithms;
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF3LNfgb2BPWm68smoUecoho8xfoFAl5xI3kACgkQoUecoho8
xfqAoBAAgBqrHrAZIAZYcGjkBSKhjXwh8c0U9FSKU0w4mlvoMzEkdo7hgexoLlmP
SBzRtKUB1Ncn6CExjH8n60Wh/5zUPNwj7Yoi0COIM0HiwGN6/Nih9mPc1tGAla3A
GkgUcqT59WUClgyAGIZreoMt9VcnXywsGDLW2QefRP/9SRBwD+ss6zGYEeVXoBPe
e8e97Ry/V+IahhmeJOl7cWGAgQCJlPAfrsa6aygDpEOJSNNxmgYhSxRoCtNCGr7x
gdVYFke6MZYD548Snqn4XpqzFCkMZo9JtzZ3JpDq+I1cL7grq6luYbRd45574+lq
eTUpoVFmyIa+SQ3bpE4mbEvUCzwtZ8usD8NALBasvKizlASjGE58gbqVuBvqOvnM
cnF5LpPb3lTEY2p5fpS4YGqc69K++QV9MG3knF/vhDc2c/87PY3zlVEqLcsKdU6D
oHR3CaI/A3cKfFX8cu+SbvlLeGykeyke/W9QDOOuEFr8RIQJe6ZITqrDSuQrT2p3
LoD5y4ex/kXsb4OtUc+9HdbzC9MxtIV5/d9BzUaNLrcD98R0ZEWCYOqb+7ex7jap
rxHaCiKwmUA7bnxVknwtrfGvK0qJe7RLyVgAJKrMQParPQiGzFFhTkNqvRxvCe8j
tY5SRsYmDKBe1yg9xqhgdPEZ3M2ykELd44tnA1WneRYms+BYjck=
=xYjG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'iwlwifi-next-for-kalle-2020-03-17' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/iwlwifi/iwlwifi-next
First set of iwlwifi patches intended for v5.7
* Refactoring of the device selection algorithms;
* MT7663 support for the MT7615 driver
* USB fixes
* DBDC fixes for MT7615
* MT76x02 watchdog fixes
* Injection fix for MT7615
* Sensitivity fix for MT7615
* MCU support code cleanup
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEABECAAYFAl5xBlIACgkQ130UHQKnbvXo/wCghKwOD0Fwd0A3gQ2jBzEE8uPL
crcAn0fKtayK1gUZXsLnl014p6a252JH
=tqwb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'mt76-for-kvalo-2020-03-17' of https://github.com/nbd168/wireless
mt76 patches for 5.7
* MT7663 support for the MT7615 driver
* USB fixes
* DBDC fixes for MT7615
* MT76x02 watchdog fixes
* Injection fix for MT7615
* Sensitivity fix for MT7615
* MCU support code cleanup
TH1 devices can now be fully differentiated by using the device
parameters we have (particularly the RF_TYPE). Start using these
parameters instead of hardcoding to specific subsystem device IDs.
This also fixes the name of one of the TH1 devices that was
erroneously using the 9260 struct and renames 9160 to 9162.
Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/iwlwifi.20200309091348.18d4304b5454.Ib168d186da88393e9ec46f0fca523edb48d9138e@changeid
Devices that also include a GNSS module have different names, so add a
new device option to differentiate them, according to the values we
have in the modules section of the subsystem device ID.
Additionally, convert the two applicable devices to use this value
instead of hardcoded subsystem IDs.
Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/iwlwifi.20200309091348.1f958e558d05.I45492bb57cbbeb4cc0ec84313bade4def7377a27@changeid
Introduce support for mt7663e 802.11ac 2x2:2 chipset to mt7615 driver.
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_mcu_uni_set_ba routine in order to add support
for mt7663e driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_mcu_uni_set_bss, mt7615_mcu_uni_set_dev and
mt7615_mcu_uni_set_beacon_offload uni mcu commands. This is a
preliminary patch to add mt7663e support
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_mcu_uni_set_bmc and mt7615_mcu_uni_set_sta routines for
mt7663e commands.
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mcu uni command type. Uni commands rely on a stripped verions
of mt7615_mcu_txd data strutture. Split mt7615_mcu_txd_common and
mt7615_mcu_txd. Uni commands will be use by mt7663e driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_init_mac_chain routine to configure per band mac
register since new devices (e.g. mt7663e) do not support dbdc
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_eeprom_parse_hw_band_cap routine in order to configure
supported band for mt7663e and mt7622 devices since they do not rely on
eeprom data to enable 2GHz/5GHz bands
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Extend mt7615_mcu_set_eeprom routine in order to be reused
adding mt7663e support to mt7615 driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Extend mt7615_driver_own and mt7615_firmware_own in order to reuse
them adding mt7663e support to mt7615 driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7663e support to mt7615_reg_map routine in order to reuse it
adding support for mt7663e driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
In order to reuse mt7615 code adding support for mt7663e driver,
introduce mt7615e_reg_map since mt7663e and mt7615 rely on a
different base registers definitions.
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Currently fw commands rely on negative cmds since they need different
mcu msg metadata. Extend this approach introducing MCU_FW_PREFIX.
This is a preliminary patch to support new mt7663e firmware commands
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Move mt7615_mcu_set_beacon_offload, mt7615_mcu_set_dev and
mt7615_mcu_set_bss routine in mt7615_mcu_ops data structure.
This is a preliminary patch to support mt7663 firmware
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Simplify mt7615_mcu_set_bss_info relying on mcu tlv helpers
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Rely on skb API and avoid kmalloc the buffer in mt7615_mcu_set_eeprom
routine
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Move mt7615_mcu_set_sta for fw version 1 and version 2 in mt7615_mcu_ops
data structure. This is a preliminary patch to properly support mt7663e
firmware.
Rework utility routines to rely on skb APIs for msg parsing
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Move mt7615_mcu_set_bmc for fw version 1 and version 2 in
mt7615_mcu_ops data structure. This is a preliminary patch
to properly support mt7663e firmware.
Rework utility routines to rely on skb APIs for msg parsing
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_mcu_ops data structure in order to support multiple
mcu ops API.
Move mt7615_mcu_set_{tx,rx}_ba to mt7615_mcu_ops differentiating between
fw v1 and v2. This is a preliminary patch to properly support mt7663e
firmware.
Rework utility routines to rely on skb APIs for msg parsing
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_mcu_send_message routine in order to allocate mcu skb
out of mcu sending routine. This approach is useful when the mcu
message is complicated and it is convenient to rely on skb buffer API
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Always initialize to 0 mcu messages since if they are not propely
configured they could hang the firmware.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
