Re: [RFC v5 01/12] ath10k: add struct ath10k_bus_params

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>]

Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9/6/18 6:16 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This struct is used as argument to ath10k_core_register in order to
>>> make it easier to add more bus parameters in the future.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Erik Stromdahl <erik.stromdahl@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
>>
>> 12 patches applied to ath-next branch of ath.git, thanks.
>>
>> c0d8d565787c ath10k: add struct ath10k_bus_params
>> 7c2dd6154fc2 ath10k: add device type enum to ath10k_bus_params
>> 367c899f622c ath10k: add bus type check in ath10k_init_hw_params
>> 9faaa14387fb ath10k: use hw_params.num_peers for num_tids in TLV init
>> 4875e0b52085 ath10k: add per target config of max_num_peers
>> e66d5361127a ath10k: DMA related fixes for high latency devices
>> 852d1bf86a5b ath10k: add HTT TX HL ops
>> d4e7f553eec3 ath10k: add HTT RX HL ops
>> 4daacc950d4d ath10k: htt: RX ring config HL support
>> a2097d6444c3 ath10k: htt: High latency TX support
>> f88d49345040 ath10k: htt: High latency RX support
>> 37f62c0d5822 ath10k: wmi: disable softirq's while calling ieee80211_rx
>>
>
> I am afraid that one of the patches in this series causes a regression
> for PCI devices :(
>
> The patch is:
>
> 4875e0b52085 ath10k: add per target config of max_num_peers
>
> With this patch I got an error during driver load.
> Reverting the patch solved the problem.
>
> I discovered this yesterday when I was setting up a test AP with an
> ath10k pcie device.
> I thought it would be a good idea to use my own tree just to make sure
> it works with PCI, and apparently it didn't work.
> I did some bisecting and the patch mentioned above turned out to be the culprit.
> I have not looked into why it fails yet (I think it is related to a
> bad num_peers value in the ath10k_hw_params_list array),
> I just noticed that reverting the patch solved the problem
>
> I was actually planning on submitting a v6 series with this patch
> removed, but you were faster.

Yeah, sorry about this. I noticed you marked the patchset as RFC but as
they looked so good I decided to take them anyway :)

But thanks for the quick fixes which I have applied and I think
everything is good now, right?

-- 
Kalle Valo