From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF632C433EF for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AB6613A9 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1349318AbhI3QP4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:15:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32824 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1349136AbhI3QPz (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:15:55 -0400 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050::465:201]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08A1C06176A; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:3:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HKywy72JLzQk1t; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:14:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: Use non-posted PCI register writes To: =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=c3=a1r?= Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Brian Norris , Amitkumar Karwar , Ganapathi Bhat , Xinming Hu , Kalle Valo , "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Tsuchiya Yuto , linux-wireless , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , linux-pci , Maximilian Luz , Andy Shevchenko , Bjorn Helgaas References: <0ce93e7c-b041-d322-90cd-40ff5e0e8ef0@v0yd.nl> <20210923202231.t2zjoejpxrbbe5hc@pali> <20210930154202.cvw3it3edv7pmqtb@pali> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Dre=c3=9fler?= Message-ID: <6ba104fa-a659-c192-4dc0-291ca3413f99@v0yd.nl> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 18:14:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210930154202.cvw3it3edv7pmqtb@pali> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CD24B268 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org On 9/30/21 5:42 PM, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Thursday 30 September 2021 17:38:43 Jonas Dreßler wrote: >> On 9/23/21 10:22 PM, Pali Rohár wrote: >>> On Thursday 23 September 2021 22:41:30 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 6:28 PM Jonas Dreßler wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/21 2:50 PM, Jonas Dreßler wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> - Just calling mwifiex_write_reg() once and then blocking until the card >>>>> wakes up using my delay-loop doesn't fix the issue, it's actually >>>>> writing multiple times that fixes the issue >>>>> >>>>> These observations sound a lot like writes (and even reads) are actually >>>>> being dropped, don't they? >>>> >>>> It sounds like you're writing into a not ready (fully powered on) device. >>> >>> This reminds me a discussion with Bjorn about CRS response returned >>> after firmware crash / reset when device is not ready yet: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210922164803.GA203171@bhelgaas/ >>> >>> Could not be this similar issue? You could check it via reading >>> PCI_VENDOR_ID register from config space. And if it is not valid value >>> then card is not really ready yet. >>> >>>> To check this, try to put a busy loop for reading and check the value >>>> till it gets 0. >>>> >>>> Something like >>>> >>>> unsigned int count = 1000; >>>> >>>> do { >>>> if (mwifiex_read_reg(...) == 0) >>>> break; >>>> } while (--count); >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> With Best Regards, >>>> Andy Shevchenko >> >> I've tried both reading PCI_VENDOR_ID and the firmware status using a busy >> loop now, but sadly none of them worked. It looks like the card always >> replies with the correct values even though it sometimes won't wake up after >> that. >> >> I do have one new observation though, although I've no clue what could be >> happening here: When reading PCI_VENDOR_ID 1000 times to wakeup we can >> "predict" the wakeup failure because exactly one (usually around the 20th) >> of those 1000 reads will fail. > > What does "fail" means here? ioread32() returns all ones, that's interpreted as failure by mwifiex_read_reg(). > >> Maybe the firmware actually tries to wake up, >> encounters an error somewhere in its wakeup routines and then goes down a >> special failure code path. That code path keeps the cards CPU so busy that >> at some point a PCI_VENDOR_ID request times out? >> >> Or well, maybe the card actually wakes up fine, but we don't receive the >> interrupt on our end, so many possibilities...