* [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
@ 2021-11-12 7:51 Dan Carpenter
2021-11-15 7:33 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2021-11-12 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pkshih; +Cc: linux-wireless
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c:1383 rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg()
error: buffer overflow 'info->rtw89_phy_config_rf_h2c' 3 <= 3
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c
662 static int rtw89_phy_config_rf_reg_fw(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
663 struct rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg_info *info)
664 {
665 u16 page = info->curr_idx / RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE;
666 u16 len = (info->curr_idx % RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE) * 4;
667 u8 i;
668 int ret = 0;
669
670 if (page > RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lets assume "page == RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM.
671 rtw89_warn(rtwdev,
672 "rf reg h2c total page num %d larger than %d (RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM)\n",
673 page, RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM);
674 return -EINVAL;
675 }
676
677 for (i = 0; i < page; i++) {
^^^^^^^^^
678 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info,
679 RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * 4, i);
680 if (ret)
681 return ret;
682 }
683 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info, len, i);
^
So "i" is now RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM and it leads to off by one out of
bounds error.
684 if (ret)
685 return ret;
686 info->curr_idx = 0;
687
688 return 0;
689 }
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2021-11-12 7:51 [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver Dan Carpenter
@ 2021-11-15 7:33 ` Pkshih
2021-11-19 6:01 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pkshih @ 2021-11-15 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 3:52 PM
> To: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
>
> Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
>
> The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> 11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c:1383 rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg()
> error: buffer overflow 'info->rtw89_phy_config_rf_h2c' 3 <= 3
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c
> 662 static int rtw89_phy_config_rf_reg_fw(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
> 663 struct rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg_info *info)
> 664 {
> 665 u16 page = info->curr_idx / RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE;
> 666 u16 len = (info->curr_idx % RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE) * 4;
> 667 u8 i;
> 668 int ret = 0;
> 669
> 670 if (page > RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM) {
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Lets assume "page == RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM.
>
> 671 rtw89_warn(rtwdev,
> 672 "rf reg h2c total page num %d larger than %d (RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM)\n",
> 673 page, RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM);
> 674 return -EINVAL;
> 675 }
> 676
> 677 for (i = 0; i < page; i++) {
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> 678 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info,
> 679 RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * 4, i);
> 680 if (ret)
> 681 return ret;
> 682 }
> 683 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info, len, i);
> ^
> So "i" is now RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM and it leads to off by one out of
> bounds error.
>
> 684 if (ret)
> 685 return ret;
> 686 info->curr_idx = 0;
> 687
> 688 return 0;
> 689 }
>
When the info->curr_idx is between RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM and
RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * (RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM + 1), it falls into the case
you mentioned. Fortunately, the input is predictable if we don't change
RF parameters, so it doesn't lead wrong situation for now.
Anyway, I will refine this function to handle all cases. Thanks for
your finding.
--
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2021-11-15 7:33 ` Pkshih
@ 2021-11-19 6:01 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pkshih @ 2021-11-19 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pkshih, Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 3:34 PM
> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 3:52 PM
> > To: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
> >
> > Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
> >
> > The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> > 11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c:1383 rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg()
> > error: buffer overflow 'info->rtw89_phy_config_rf_h2c' 3 <= 3
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/phy.c
> > 662 static int rtw89_phy_config_rf_reg_fw(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
> > 663 struct rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg_info *info)
> > 664 {
> > 665 u16 page = info->curr_idx / RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE;
> > 666 u16 len = (info->curr_idx % RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE) * 4;
> > 667 u8 i;
> > 668 int ret = 0;
> > 669
> > 670 if (page > RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM) {
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Lets assume "page == RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM.
> >
> > 671 rtw89_warn(rtwdev,
> > 672 "rf reg h2c total page num %d larger than %d
> (RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM)\n",
> > 673 page, RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM);
> > 674 return -EINVAL;
> > 675 }
> > 676
> > 677 for (i = 0; i < page; i++) {
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > 678 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info,
> > 679 RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * 4, i);
> > 680 if (ret)
> > 681 return ret;
> > 682 }
> > 683 ret = rtw89_fw_h2c_rf_reg(rtwdev, info, len, i);
> > ^
> > So "i" is now RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM and it leads to off by one out of
> > bounds error.
> >
> > 684 if (ret)
> > 685 return ret;
> > 686 info->curr_idx = 0;
> > 687
> > 688 return 0;
> > 689 }
> >
>
> When the info->curr_idx is between RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM and
> RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_SIZE * (RTW89_H2C_RF_PAGE_NUM + 1), it falls into the case
> you mentioned. Fortunately, the input is predictable if we don't change
> RF parameters, so it doesn't lead wrong situation for now.
>
> Anyway, I will refine this function to handle all cases. Thanks for
> your finding.
>
I have sent a patch [1] to fix this.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20211119055729.12826-1-pkshih@realtek.com/T/#u
--
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
@ 2022-12-12 15:33 Dan Carpenter
2022-12-13 0:46 ` Ping-Ke Shih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2022-12-12 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pkshih; +Cc: linux-wireless
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
11, 2021, leads to the following potential issue (just from reading
the code):
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h
3878 static inline u32
3879 rtw89_read32_mask(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u32 addr, u32 mask)
3880 {
3881 u32 shift = __ffs(mask);
3882 u32 orig;
3883 u32 ret;
3884
3885 orig = rtw89_read32(rtwdev, addr);
--> 3886 ret = (orig & mask) >> shift;
I think this line should be:
ret = (orig & mask) >> (shift - 1);
A typical mask here is 0xff so __ffs() is 1 because the first bit is
set. This code will do: ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 1; I think it should be
ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 0;
If the mask was 0xff00 I would expect >> 8 instead of >> 9 etc.
3887
3888 return ret;
3889 }
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2022-12-12 15:33 Dan Carpenter
@ 2022-12-13 0:46 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-13 4:21 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ping-Ke Shih @ 2022-12-13 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 11:34 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
>
> Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
>
> The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> 11, 2021, leads to the following potential issue (just from reading
> the code):
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h
> 3878 static inline u32
> 3879 rtw89_read32_mask(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u32 addr, u32 mask)
> 3880 {
> 3881 u32 shift = __ffs(mask);
> 3882 u32 orig;
> 3883 u32 ret;
> 3884
> 3885 orig = rtw89_read32(rtwdev, addr);
> --> 3886 ret = (orig & mask) >> shift;
>
> I think this line should be:
>
> ret = (orig & mask) >> (shift - 1);
>
> A typical mask here is 0xff so __ffs() is 1 because the first bit is
> set. This code will do: ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 1; I think it should be
> ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 0;
>
> If the mask was 0xff00 I would expect >> 8 instead of >> 9 etc.
ffs(0xff)=1 and __ffs(0xff)=0, so I think original is correct.
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2022-12-13 0:46 ` Ping-Ke Shih
@ 2022-12-13 4:21 ` Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2022-12-13 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ping-Ke Shih; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 12:46:22AM +0000, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 11:34 PM
> > To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
> >
> > Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
> >
> > The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> > 11, 2021, leads to the following potential issue (just from reading
> > the code):
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h
> > 3878 static inline u32
> > 3879 rtw89_read32_mask(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u32 addr, u32 mask)
> > 3880 {
> > 3881 u32 shift = __ffs(mask);
> > 3882 u32 orig;
> > 3883 u32 ret;
> > 3884
> > 3885 orig = rtw89_read32(rtwdev, addr);
> > --> 3886 ret = (orig & mask) >> shift;
> >
> > I think this line should be:
> >
> > ret = (orig & mask) >> (shift - 1);
> >
> > A typical mask here is 0xff so __ffs() is 1 because the first bit is
> > set. This code will do: ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 1; I think it should be
> > ret = (orig & 0xff) >> 0;
> >
> > If the mask was 0xff00 I would expect >> 8 instead of >> 9 etc.
>
> ffs(0xff)=1 and __ffs(0xff)=0, so I think original is correct.
Oh, wow. You're right. I hadn't realized it worked like that.
Sorry!
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
@ 2021-11-30 10:42 Dan Carpenter
2021-12-01 1:57 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2021-11-30 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pkshih; +Cc: linux-wireless
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c:31 rtw89_ops_tx()
error: uninitialized symbol 'qsel'.
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c
16 static void rtw89_ops_tx(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
17 struct ieee80211_tx_control *control,
18 struct sk_buff *skb)
19 {
20 struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev = hw->priv;
21 struct ieee80211_tx_info *info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb);
22 struct ieee80211_vif *vif = info->control.vif;
23 struct ieee80211_sta *sta = control->sta;
24 int ret, qsel;
25
26 ret = rtw89_core_tx_write(rtwdev, vif, sta, skb, &qsel);
27 if (ret) {
28 rtw89_err(rtwdev, "failed to transmit skb: %d\n", ret);
29 ieee80211_free_txskb(hw, skb);
Missing return; here?
30 }
--> 31 rtw89_core_tx_kick_off(rtwdev, qsel);
32 }
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2021-11-30 10:42 Dan Carpenter
@ 2021-12-01 1:57 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pkshih @ 2021-12-01 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 6:43 PM
> To: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
>
> Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
>
> The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> 11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c:31 rtw89_ops_tx()
> error: uninitialized symbol 'qsel'.
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac80211.c
> 16 static void rtw89_ops_tx(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> 17 struct ieee80211_tx_control *control,
> 18 struct sk_buff *skb)
> 19 {
> 20 struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev = hw->priv;
> 21 struct ieee80211_tx_info *info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb);
> 22 struct ieee80211_vif *vif = info->control.vif;
> 23 struct ieee80211_sta *sta = control->sta;
> 24 int ret, qsel;
> 25
> 26 ret = rtw89_core_tx_write(rtwdev, vif, sta, skb, &qsel);
> 27 if (ret) {
> 28 rtw89_err(rtwdev, "failed to transmit skb: %d\n", ret);
> 29 ieee80211_free_txskb(hw, skb);
>
> Missing return; here?
Yes. Thanks for the finding.
I will send a patch to fix it.
--
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
@ 2021-11-08 14:47 Dan Carpenter
2021-11-09 1:04 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2021-11-08 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pkshih; +Cc: linux-wireless
Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac.c:586 hfc_ch_ctrl()
warn: array off by one? 'cfg[ch]'
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac.c
568 static int hfc_ch_ctrl(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u8 ch)
569 {
570 struct rtw89_hfc_param *param = &rtwdev->mac.hfc_param;
571 const struct rtw89_hfc_ch_cfg *cfg = param->ch_cfg;
572 int ret = 0;
573 u32 val = 0;
574
575 ret = rtw89_mac_check_mac_en(rtwdev, RTW89_MAC_0, RTW89_DMAC_SEL);
576 if (ret)
577 return ret;
578
579 ret = hfc_ch_cfg_chk(rtwdev, ch);
580 if (ret)
581 return ret;
582
583 if (ch > RTW89_DMA_B1HI)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
584 return -EINVAL;
585
--> 586 val = u32_encode_bits(cfg[ch].min, B_AX_MIN_PG_MASK) |
587 u32_encode_bits(cfg[ch].max, B_AX_MAX_PG_MASK) |
588 (cfg[ch].grp ? B_AX_GRP : 0);
This is an unpublished Smatch warning which uses an "assume every >
comparison should be >= wrong until proven otherwise" approach. In
this case, Smatch can't tell the size of the cfg[] array.
Manually it looks like cfg can only be rtw8852a_hfc_chcfg_pcie[] which
has RTW89_DMA_CH_NUM (13) elements. Is there a reason why we don't use
the last element? Also it's puzzling that the last element is
FWCMDQ instead of H2C. So maybe that's the reason?
589 rtw89_write32(rtwdev, R_AX_ACH0_PAGE_CTRL + ch * 4, val);
590
591 return 0;
592 }
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* RE: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
2021-11-08 14:47 Dan Carpenter
@ 2021-11-09 1:04 ` Pkshih
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pkshih @ 2021-11-09 1:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:47 PM
> To: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver
>
> Hello Ping-Ke Shih,
>
> The patch e3ec7017f6a2: "rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver" from Oct
> 11, 2021, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning:
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac.c:586 hfc_ch_ctrl()
> warn: array off by one? 'cfg[ch]'
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/mac.c
> 568 static int hfc_ch_ctrl(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, u8 ch)
> 569 {
> 570 struct rtw89_hfc_param *param = &rtwdev->mac.hfc_param;
> 571 const struct rtw89_hfc_ch_cfg *cfg = param->ch_cfg;
> 572 int ret = 0;
> 573 u32 val = 0;
> 574
> 575 ret = rtw89_mac_check_mac_en(rtwdev, RTW89_MAC_0, RTW89_DMAC_SEL);
> 576 if (ret)
> 577 return ret;
> 578
> 579 ret = hfc_ch_cfg_chk(rtwdev, ch);
> 580 if (ret)
> 581 return ret;
> 582
> 583 if (ch > RTW89_DMA_B1HI)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> 584 return -EINVAL;
> 585
> --> 586 val = u32_encode_bits(cfg[ch].min, B_AX_MIN_PG_MASK) |
> 587 u32_encode_bits(cfg[ch].max, B_AX_MAX_PG_MASK) |
> 588 (cfg[ch].grp ? B_AX_GRP : 0);
>
> This is an unpublished Smatch warning which uses an "assume every >
> comparison should be >= wrong until proven otherwise" approach. In
> this case, Smatch can't tell the size of the cfg[] array.
I'm not clear how to fix this warning. Any suggestion?
The caller of this function is
for (ch = RTW89_DMA_ACH0; ch < RTW89_DMA_H2C; ch++) {
ret = hfc_ch_ctrl(rtwdev, ch);
...
}
So, 'ch' is between 0 and 11. Maybe, this checking can be removed?
>
> Manually it looks like cfg can only be rtw8852a_hfc_chcfg_pcie[] which
> has RTW89_DMA_CH_NUM (13) elements. Is there a reason why we don't use
> the last element?
We don't use the last element, because channel 0 to 11 are the regular TX channels
that will transmit packets to air. The channel 12 (H2C) is a special channel we
send firmware commands from driver, so it doesn't need additional configurations.
More, the list of R_AX_ACH0_PAGE_CTRL series don't have one for channel 12 neither.
> Also it's puzzling that the last element is
> FWCMDQ instead of H2C. So maybe that's the reason?
FWCMDQ is a queue or channel that is used to send H2C from driver to firmware.
So, FWCMD and H2C can be seen as synonyms, as well as FWCMDQ and H2CQ.
>
> 589 rtw89_write32(rtwdev, R_AX_ACH0_PAGE_CTRL + ch * 4, val);
> 590
> 591 return 0;
> 592 }
>
--
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-13 4:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-11-12 7:51 [bug report] rtw89: add Realtek 802.11ax driver Dan Carpenter
2021-11-15 7:33 ` Pkshih
2021-11-19 6:01 ` Pkshih
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-12-12 15:33 Dan Carpenter
2022-12-13 0:46 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-13 4:21 ` Dan Carpenter
2021-11-30 10:42 Dan Carpenter
2021-12-01 1:57 ` Pkshih
2021-11-08 14:47 Dan Carpenter
2021-11-09 1:04 ` Pkshih
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).