Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Handle "invalid" BDFs for msm8998 devices

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Handle "invalid" BDFs for msm8998 devices
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878soks77y.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOCk7NoXv2-8GO=VYS8dNPJF6sj=S3RbkfqQGW0kvvVmR8V1kw@mail.gmail.com> (Jeffrey Hugo's message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:53:51 -0700")

Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:04 AM Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:47:12PM -0800, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> > When the BDF download QMI message has the end field set to 1, it signals
>> > the end of the transfer, and triggers the firmware to do a CRC check.  The
>> > BDFs for msm8998 devices fail this check, yet the firmware is happy to
>> > still use the BDF.  It appears that this error is not caught by the
>> > downstream drive by concidence, therefore there are production devices
>> > in the field where this issue needs to be handled otherwise we cannot
>> > support wifi on them.  So, attempt to detect this scenario as best we can
>> > and treat it as non-fatal.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c | 11 +++++++----
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
>> > index eb618a2652db..5ff8cfc93778 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
>> > @@ -265,10 +265,13 @@ static int ath10k_qmi_bdf_dnld_send_sync(struct ath10k_qmi *qmi)
>> >                       goto out;
>> >
>> >               if (resp.resp.result != QMI_RESULT_SUCCESS_V01) {
>> > -                     ath10k_err(ar, "failed to download board data file: %d\n",
>> > -                                resp.resp.error);
>> > -                     ret = -EINVAL;
>> > -                     goto out;
>> > +                     if (!(req->end == 1 &&
>> > +                           resp.resp.result == QMI_ERR_MALFORMED_MSG_V01)) {
>>
>> Would it make sense to combine the inner and outer condition,
>> something like this (completely untested) ?
>
> I guess, make sense from what perspective?  Looks like the assembly
> ends up being the same, so it would be down to "readability" which is
> subjective - I personally don't see a major advantage to one way or
> the other.  It does look like Kalle already picked up this patch, so
> I'm guessing that if folks feel your suggestion is superior, then it
> would need to be a follow on.

Same here, it's only on the pending branch so changes are still
possible.

-- 
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k