From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iUkjj-0006BT-DB for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 04:58:36 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Handle "invalid" BDFs for msm8998 devices References: <20191106234712.2380-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> <20191112090444.ak2xu67eawfgpdgb@netronome.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:25 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Jeffrey Hugo's message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:53:51 -0700") Message-ID: <878soks77y.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Jeffrey Hugo Cc: Simon Horman , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, lkml , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, MSM , davem@davemloft.net Jeffrey Hugo writes: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:04 AM Simon Horman 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 >> > --- >> > 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