From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3EC13A89A for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:12:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.145.95.4 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731931944; cv=none; b=ai8N0Mq0mD0mgxNumKH61W0bv8OVdGJjSQAzMTf9JKR/9CicDN5FKW8O2WGIGbtpofRrWknBU7sr9hpC1eARR1n5TY0LQ0e3iYq+lOY4nwf2WDuB4gd/DMDbgQVOpWW1vcAVK88M6DBW+L+rtOvXUZF7UYUPgt3IHL6mp1At5ZQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731931944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0hrdceqrbjeJBAKk6bVCbKODz3f5ZWzYzkLB/MObs9g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=eOkrZ8+v6aqDjZQQIVaZN+7GkL+EvM5fB6EpMOKUedLigPnzAsNSIB0XMKwpwyksBTmdCZUsZiY9FlH6hUtNr+QOhsNfUzcV1dBE9kJ4NA3BIXvzaW8haVRY/hv8o8X0c7ltIsbBXs5yKxV+koveKj+2WSMN+JG9fduZ6sJay68= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=toke.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=toke.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk header.i=@toke.dk header.b=AGPKgAua; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.145.95.4 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=toke.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=toke.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk header.i=@toke.dk header.b="AGPKgAua" From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1731931930; bh=0hrdceqrbjeJBAKk6bVCbKODz3f5ZWzYzkLB/MObs9g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AGPKgAua2+aUWHpRqCcpu+iEGY0fXUSFU4bL4FS0nwooTngdaizSZ2f9b0EXHfk4Z n4rqTjOTKvnlGbXlQhu/pDW/ytRjUxKJ91QB/nYHkfIYaQchK1FIc90sjLrjEakR2j F1SaWDYAYnh3Z8wQfgdgoWupbembjpdZ0DKgTaDfFVI7teRR5XwfFW/6JrinF5ih1x Hl79TssuJkjej6pl3S5wotMBGc0lfOlasP0PFfoXtEaXWEYbeuDaaHFWM1z6uJ18eB oZSOLKWF5ZSwX/SlcThBgRWYCCNwLw7Iw1h/lPcfl+DU6XuCj58zY56WFpVaQvuL02 yNHl7jdKxenNg== To: Hamdi Issam , Simon Wunderlich , Sven Eckelmann , Kalle Valo Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Felix Fietkau Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath9k: Add RX inactivity detection and reset chip when it occurs In-Reply-To: References: <20241106-ath9k-deaf-detection-v1-1-736a150d2425@redhat.com> <3288096.AJdgDx1Vlc@ripper> <87msic78no.fsf@toke.dk> <5009451.31r3eYUQgx@prime> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:12:09 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <87jzd0rbae.fsf@toke.dk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hamdi Issam writes: > On 11/6/24 17:03, Simon Wunderlich wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 6, 2024 3:12:59 PM CET Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8r= gensen wrote: >>> Sven Eckelmann writes: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thank you for submitting the patch. >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 13:41:44 CET Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rg= ensen wrote: >>>>> Since this is based on ideas by all three people, but not actually >>>>> directly derived from any of the patches, I'm including Suggested-by >>>>> tags from Simon, Sven and Felix below, which should hopefully serve as >>>>> proper credit. >>>> At least for me, this is more than enough. Thanks. >>>> >>>> I don't have the setup at the moment to test it again - maybe Issam ca= n do >>>> this. One concern I would have (because I don't find the notes regardi= ng >>>> this problem), is whether this check is now breaking because we count >>>> more things. In the past, rxlp/rxok was used for the check. And now I >>>> don't know whether the count for the other ones were still increasing. >>>> >>>> * RXHP (rather sure that "high priority frame" wasn't increasing) >>>> * RXEOL ("no RX descriptors available" - I would guess no, but I can't= say >>>> for> >>>> sure) >>>> >>>> * RXORN ("FIFO overrun" I would guess no, but I can't say for sure) >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Sven Eckelmann >>> Great, thanks for the review! I'll let it sit in patchwork for a little >>> while to give people a chance to test it out before sending it over to >>> Kalle to be applied :) >>> >>> -Toke >> Hi Toke, >> >> this looks good to me in general. I'm not sure either about the particul= ar RX >> interrupts. We can test this by putting the AP in a shield box and verif= y that >> the counters are actually increasing, and that should be good enough. >> >> Acked-by: Simon Wunderlich >> >> Thank you! >> Simon > > Hi Toke, > > I have tested this patch in mesh mode, and=C2=A0it functions as expected. > > I conducted the test by placing one node inside a shield box and the=20 > other outside, then verified whether a reset occurred due to RX path=20 > inactivity. > > Tested-by: Issam Hamdi Great, thanks for testing! :) -Toke