From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
To: "luka.gejak@linux.dev" <luka.gejak@linux.dev>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Michael Straube" <straube.linux@gmail.com>,
Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com>,
Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com>,
"Hans de Goede" <johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/6] wifi: rtw88: preparations for RTL8723B/RTL8723BS
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 00:44:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99f04f89fb584e97807ef5470a37d0fd@realtek.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260814105327.6687-1-luka.gejak@linux.dev>
luka.gejak@linux.dev <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote:
> Changes in v5:
> - Dropped "fw: handle the RTL8723BS management TX reports", which v4
> had restored. It cannot do what its commit message claimed. This
> firmware does not advertise FW_FEATURE_LPS_C2H, so
> rtw_fw_leave_lps_check() takes the REG_TCR polling path and nothing
> ever waits on the C2H completion the patch rerouted; and with the
> driver instrumented, 93 TX reports over three scans all arrive as
> C2H id 0x03, with no event ever arriving as a top level 0x12 or
> 0x32. Bitterblue Smith made exactly this point on v1 and was right.
> A tester on a Rockchip RK3288 board confirmed the timeout patch in
> this series is enough on its own. This is the fourth correction of
> something I had claimed on the list; restoring it in v4 was based on
> a tester reporting that a branch containing it cleared the warnings,
> which showed the branch helped, not that this patch in it did.
> With it gone the series no longer touches fw.c.
> - Power save is now enabled on the test machine, so LPS is exercised
> there. The v2 entry below dropped a patch that gated LPS entry on
> smoothed throughput, partly on the grounds that LPS never engaged on
> this setup at all, which was never a sound reason to drop it. It is
> measured now, paired against this series in one session with power
> save on: 60 idle pings average 5.1 ms without the gating and 6.0 ms
> with it, and TCP is 30.0 down and 19.1 up against 32.3 and 18.9. It
> makes no difference, because the gate tests the smoothed throughput
> and interactive traffic rounds to zero there, so it never fires in
> the case it was meant to help. It stays dropped, now on a
> measurement rather than for want of one.
> - sdio: fixed a transmit stall in the back-pressure patch, found while
> auditing a tester report of transmit stopping under bidirectional
> load with receive unaffected and nothing in the log. The TX work
> item was only re-armed when a transfer failed with a page shortage.
> Once the mac80211 queue can be stopped, that is not enough: a
> stopped queue is handed no further frames, so on any other failure
> nothing would kick the worker again and the affected access category
> would stay stopped for good, with the link still up. It now also
> re-arms on a failed skb expansion, which together with the page
> shortage covers both of the failures that produce no log message.
> The remaining errors are each logged where they happen, so unlike
> those two they are visible rather than an unexplained hang, and they
> keep the existing behaviour rather than being retried forever.
> - rx: the zero length test now evaluates pkt_stat->pkt_len first, so
> the unlikely case short circuits before the chip test.
> - sdio: the commit message now says what OQT is, as far as the vendor
> driver reveals it: the vendor calls the register the OQT free space
> and never expands the acronym, and it holds the number of further
> transfers the SDIO output queue will accept.
> - sdio: rtw_sdio_8723bs_sync_free_txpg() now returns whether the chip
> reported anything and is the only caller of
> rtw_sdio_8723bs_store_free_txpg(), and
> rtw_sdio_8723bs_init_free_txpg() returns an error rather than
> nothing. Working through that suggestion found a real bug: the
> public pool size was computed as acq_pg_num minus the reserved
> queues with no check, so a chip that came up with no transmit page
> allocation at all would underflow a u16 and leave the driver
> believing it had about 65000 free pages. That calculation is now
> rtw_sdio_8723bs_pubq_num(), shared with the queue page allocation
> repair path, and it fails cleanly instead.
> - sdio: the output queue wait is now bounded by a jiffies deadline
> rather than a loop count, so RTW_SDIO_OQT_TIMEOUT_MS really is a
> timeout in milliseconds. It was 1000 iterations of a 1 to 2 ms
> sleep before, so the name was only approximately true.
> - sdio: rtw_sdio_8723bs_check_rqpn() returns an error instead of
> silently doing nothing when the transmit page pool cannot cover the
> reserved queues, and rtw_sdio_start() propagates it. Both early
> returns are now explained: a non-zero free page count means the
> allocation latched during power on and must be left alone.
> - sdio: fixed the interrupt acknowledgment. It masked the status word
> with both irq_mask and RTW_SDIO_HISR_CLEAR_MASK, but for this chip
> irq_mask is REG_SDIO_HIMR_RX_REQUEST alone and that bit is not in
> the clear mask, so the two had no bits in common and the driver
> acknowledged nothing at all. It now masks with the defined bits
> only, which is what the comment described. Thanks to Ping-Ke for
> catching this. Retested on hardware.
> - sdio: the back-pressure and wake conditions moved into
> rtw_sdio_8723bs_stop_tx_queue() and _wake_tx_queue(), and the two
> requeue sites into rtw_sdio_reschedule_tx_work(), instead of long
> conditions inline.
> - sdio: rtw_sdio_process_tx_queue() now returns 0 on success and 1 for
> the empty queue case, rather than the other way round.
> - sdio: queue_stopped[] renamed to tx_queue_stopped[].
> - RTW_SDIO_TX_RETRY_DELAY is left as msecs_to_jiffies(1). Ping-Ke
> asked whether it becomes 0 when HZ is below 1000; it does not, since
> msecs_to_jiffies() rounds up for HZ < 1000 and returns one jiffy.
If you can add these notes along my comments, it will be easier to me.
Not only your reply, but also I can reference source code again to
reconsider my comments if needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-19 0:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 10:53 [PATCH v5 0/6] wifi: rtw88: preparations for RTL8723B/RTL8723BS luka.gejak
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 1/6] wifi: rtw88: add the RTL8723B chip type and SDIO helper luka.gejak
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 2/6] wifi: rtw88: rx: mark zero length packets on RTL8723BS luka.gejak
2026-08-19 0:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 3/6] wifi: rtw88: tx: extend the TX report purge timeout to RTL8723BS luka.gejak
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 4/6] wifi: rtw88: sdio: track free TX pages and OQT credits for RTL8723BS luka.gejak
2026-08-19 0:52 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 5/6] wifi: rtw88: sdio: set up RX aggregation and interrupts " luka.gejak
2026-08-19 0:56 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2026-08-14 10:53 ` [PATCH v5 6/6] wifi: rtw88: sdio: add TX back-pressure and retry on page starvation luka.gejak
2026-08-19 1:14 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2026-08-19 7:19 ` Luka Gejak
2026-08-19 7:31 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2026-08-19 0:44 ` Ping-Ke Shih [this message]
2026-08-19 7:19 ` [PATCH v5 0/6] wifi: rtw88: preparations for RTL8723B/RTL8723BS support Luka Gejak
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=99f04f89fb584e97807ef5470a37d0fd@realtek.com \
--to=pkshih@realtek.com \
--cc=johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luka.gejak@linux.dev \
--cc=pbrobinson@gmail.com \
--cc=rtl8821cerfe2@gmail.com \
--cc=straube.linux@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox