unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Arnd Bergmann]

Hi,

I just got a Lenovo Yoga 3 11" Laptop that came with a NFA345 wifi module that
is allegedly using a qca6164 chip. The Windows driver calls it a 61x4 version 20
device and the PCI ID is 168c:0041, which is different from the device ID
that was just added to ath10k as QCA6174_2_1_DEVICE_ID (168c:003e).

Does anyone have more information about this device and about how hard it would
be to add support to the driver? Is there a chance that it might just work by
adding the IDs or is it something rather different?

	Arnd

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Michal Kazior]

On 19 March 2015 at 13:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just got a Lenovo Yoga 3 11" Laptop that came with a NFA345 wifi module that
> is allegedly using a qca6164 chip. The Windows driver calls it a 61x4 version 20
> device and the PCI ID is 168c:0041, which is different from the device ID
> that was just added to ath10k as QCA6174_2_1_DEVICE_ID (168c:003e).
>
> Does anyone have more information about this device and about how hard it would
> be to add support to the driver? Is there a chance that it might just work by
> adding the IDs or is it something rather different?

"version 20 device" strongly suggests this is a hw2.1 device.
Currently there's only ath10k firmware for hw3.0 chips available. You
can look through ath10k mailing list for discussions on qca6174 hw2.1
(qca6164 is basically 1x1 instead of 2x2 from what I understand).

If not for the firmware confusion adding support to the driver is
probably as trivial as just adding the new pci device id to the
supported list.


Michał

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 19 March 2015, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 19 March 2015 at 13:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just got a Lenovo Yoga 3 11" Laptop that came with a NFA345 wifi module that
> > is allegedly using a qca6164 chip. The Windows driver calls it a 61x4 version 20
> > device and the PCI ID is 168c:0041, which is different from the device ID
> > that was just added to ath10k as QCA6174_2_1_DEVICE_ID (168c:003e).
> >
> > Does anyone have more information about this device and about how hard it would
> > be to add support to the driver? Is there a chance that it might just work by
> > adding the IDs or is it something rather different?
> 
> "version 20 device" strongly suggests this is a hw2.1 device.
> Currently there's only ath10k firmware for hw3.0 chips available. You
> can look through ath10k mailing list for discussions on qca6174 hw2.1
> (qca6164 is basically 1x1 instead of 2x2 from what I understand).
> 
> If not for the firmware confusion adding support to the driver is
> probably as trivial as just adding the new pci device id to the
> supported list.

Ok, I see. I still have Windows on the machine, so I can probably
manage to extract the blob and also build a patched kernel once I'm
able to install a working environment on the laptop.

Thanks for the quick reply!

	Arnd

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Kalle Valo]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

> On Thursday 19 March 2015, Michal Kazior wrote:
>> On 19 March 2015 at 13:17, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I just got a Lenovo Yoga 3 11" Laptop that came with a NFA345 wifi module that
>> > is allegedly using a qca6164 chip. The Windows driver calls it a 61x4 version 20
>> > device and the PCI ID is 168c:0041, which is different from the device ID
>> > that was just added to ath10k as QCA6174_2_1_DEVICE_ID (168c:003e).
>> >
>> > Does anyone have more information about this device and about how hard it would
>> > be to add support to the driver? Is there a chance that it might just work by
>> > adding the IDs or is it something rather different?
>> 
>> "version 20 device" strongly suggests this is a hw2.1 device.
>> Currently there's only ath10k firmware for hw3.0 chips available. You
>> can look through ath10k mailing list for discussions on qca6174 hw2.1
>> (qca6164 is basically 1x1 instead of 2x2 from what I understand).
>> 
>> If not for the firmware confusion adding support to the driver is
>> probably as trivial as just adding the new pci device id to the
>> supported list.
>
> Ok, I see. I still have Windows on the machine, so I can probably
> manage to extract the blob and also build a patched kernel once I'm
> able to install a working environment on the laptop.

I'm internally trying to sort out the firmware problem but that will
probably take some time. I or Michal will send mail once we have
something newsworthy.

-- 
Kalle Valo

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Joseph Salisbury]

Hello,

There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?

Thanks in advance,

Joe

[0] http://pad.lv/1436940
[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.ath10k.devel/2057


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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Michal Kazior]

On 12 August 2015 at 21:33, Joseph Salisbury
<joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
> report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
> in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?
>
> Thanks in advance,

Thanks for pinging.

Recently we finally found a way to boot qca6164 with unofficial
windows-extracted firmware images on ath10k[1]. We still don't have an
official firmware release for qca61x4 family for ath10k though.


Michał

[1]: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2015-August/005752.html

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Kalle Valo]

Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:

> On 12 August 2015 at 21:33, Joseph Salisbury
> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
>> report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
>> in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
> Thanks for pinging.
>
> Recently we finally found a way to boot qca6164 with unofficial
> windows-extracted firmware images on ath10k[1]. We still don't have an
> official firmware release for qca61x4 family for ath10k though.

I just pushed the firmware here:

https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/commit/7f7e7dda33676ced293de477b03711199ffe5256

Please let me know how it works (or not). And really sorry for taking so
long with this.

-- 
Kalle Valo

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Joseph Salisbury]

On 08/13/2015 06:34 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:
>
>> On 12 August 2015 at 21:33, Joseph Salisbury
>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
>>> report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
>>> in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>> Thanks for pinging.
>>
>> Recently we finally found a way to boot qca6164 with unofficial
>> windows-extracted firmware images on ath10k[1]. We still don't have an
>> official firmware release for qca61x4 family for ath10k though.
> I just pushed the firmware here:
>
> https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/commit/7f7e7dda33676ced293de477b03711199ffe5256
>
> Please let me know how it works (or not). And really sorry for taking so
> long with this.
>
Thanks for such a fast response! 

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Joseph Salisbury]

On 08/13/2015 06:34 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:
>
>> On 12 August 2015 at 21:33, Joseph Salisbury
>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
>>> report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
>>> in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>> Thanks for pinging.
>>
>> Recently we finally found a way to boot qca6164 with unofficial
>> windows-extracted firmware images on ath10k[1]. We still don't have an
>> official firmware release for qca61x4 family for ath10k though.
> I just pushed the firmware here:
>
> https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/commit/7f7e7dda33676ced293de477b03711199ffe5256
>
> Please let me know how it works (or not). And really sorry for taking so
> long with this.
>
With the new files, a reporter in the bug says that he still gets the
ath10k/QCA6174/hw2.1/firmware-4.bin errors. Does the kernel need to be
updated for a new driver that looks for a -5 firmware?

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

Re: unknown qca6164 model 0x0041

[Michal Kazior]

On 17 August 2015 at 19:37, Joseph Salisbury
<joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 08/13/2015 06:34 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12 August 2015 at 21:33, Joseph Salisbury
>>> <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There are still new folks reporting this issue in the Launchpad bug
>>>> report[0].  Has there been any progress on the firmware problem reported
>>>> in the comment by Kalle Valo on March 26, 2015[1]?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Thanks for pinging.
>>>
>>> Recently we finally found a way to boot qca6164 with unofficial
>>> windows-extracted firmware images on ath10k[1]. We still don't have an
>>> official firmware release for qca61x4 family for ath10k though.
>> I just pushed the firmware here:
>>
>> https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/commit/7f7e7dda33676ced293de477b03711199ffe5256
>>
>> Please let me know how it works (or not). And really sorry for taking so
>> long with this.
>>
> With the new files, a reporter in the bug says that he still gets the
> ath10k/QCA6174/hw2.1/firmware-4.bin errors. Does the kernel need to be
> updated for a new driver that looks for a -5 firmware?

Yes - either 4.2-rc or newer, or use Kalle's tree[1].

The qca6174 hw2.1 fix has been pulled into 4.1-stable[2] but it
doesn't understand the ignore_otp_result firmware feature flag so if
you rename the firmware-5.bin[3] to firmware-4.bin you'll need to load
ath10k_core module with "skip_otp=y" parameter.


Michał


[1]: https://github.com/kvalo/ath
[2]: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/commit/?h=linux-4.1.y&id=b235edce5cbe4e978d44d8c57ec15afc4ba27d50
[3]: https://github.com/kvalo/ath10k-firmware/blob/7f7e7dda33676ced293de477b03711199ffe5256/ath10k/QCA6174/hw2.1/firmware-5.bin

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