Re: [PATCH] ath10k: request firmware flush in ath10k_flush.

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 09/23/2014 11:50 PM, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 23 September 2014 16:19, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>> On 09/23/2014 02:16 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
>>> On 19 September 2014 20:28,  <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> +       /* If we are CT firmware, ask it to flush all tids on all peers
>>>> on
>>>> +        * all vdevs.  Normal firmware will just crash if you do this.
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (test_bit(ATH10K_FW_FEATURE_WMI_10X_CT, ar->fw_features))
>>>> +               ath10k_wmi_peer_flush(ar, 0xFFFFFFFF, peer_addr,
>>>> 0xFFFFFFFF);
>>>
>>> I recall you've explained this some time ago, but can you refresh my
>>> memory, please? Is this any different from iterating over all peers
>>> and flushing each? Or does your firmware do so extra magic that is
>>> impossible to do with normal firmware commands?
>>
>> My firmware does that iteration internally.
>>
>> You could probably do that in the driver, but it would be a lot
>> of messages (for all vdevs, all peers, all tids)...
>> I was not sure if there were limits to the number
>> of commands you should attempt during the flush...
> 
> Thanks. I think ath10k should do this instead of having CT-specific
> flush eventually.

Yes, though I would still like the optimization enabled if my
firmware is running...

> I recall I actually did per-peer flushing in RFC patches a long time
> ago but I didn't pursue getting them merged. I think Denton uses these
> patches in his setup. They don't flush vdev self-peers though (do you
> do that internally?).

I think I do.  Let me check, and send you some details privately.

Thanks,
Ben


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com