From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:45642 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725199AbeKIF3x (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:29:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:52:53 -0800 From: Rajkumar Manoharan To: Brian Norris Cc: govinds@codeaurora.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel , yyuwang@codeaurora.org, pillair@codeaurora.org, stable , linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH REGRESSION] Revert "ath10k: add quiet mode support for QCA6174/QCA9377" In-Reply-To: References: <20181107185643.240346-1-briannorris@chromium.org> <7f2ef494f4a2aba1845a157da8fec449@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2018-11-08 09:30, Brian Norris wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 8:32 PM Govind Singh > wrote: >> On 2018-11-08 03:00, Rajkumar Manoharan wrote: >> > >> > The change "ath10k: add quiet mode support for QCA6174/QCA9377" was >> > merged even >> > before full WCN3990 device support was added in ath10k. How come it >> > could be regression >> > for WCN3990. I know both are sharing same WMI-TLV interface but >> > reverting this >> > will break QCA6174/QCA9377. no? > > I don't see how the revert would "break" QCA6174 -- QCA6174 worked > just fine without this feature and should continue to do so. > I meant that the revert commit remove quiet mode support from QCA6174 & QCA9377. >> This regression is found while we switched from 4.18 + WCN3990 >> back-ports to 4.19. > > ^^ What Govind said. WCN3990 support has been trickling in over a few > releases, and it doesn't seem kosher to allow people to submit > regressions in the midst of that. > Nobody prefers regression :). WCN3990 support was still in progress, at the time the commit got merged into upstream. My point is that we can't expect the community to validate the changes against in-progress platform. >> >> IMO, we should use (WMI_SERVICE_THERMAL_MGMT | WMI_SERVICE_THERM_THROT >> ) >> service bitmap check and call >> ath10k_thermal_set_throttling only if fw supports THERMAL THROTTLE >> feature. But we need to ensure all >> available ath10k fw's are reporting this service. > > And the above notes from Govind highlight this -- if the feature was > not protected by the appropriate service flags, then we can't be sure > that you didn't break a bunch of other firmware releases out there. > Linux should not break for everyone just because you spun a firmware > release. > That is true. Any new features or interface changes in firmware will be advertised by feature bit. But the quiet param was available in firmware since first release. > Of course, I'll leave it up to Kalle as to how he wants to mediate > this. And if you come up with a solid patch soon that can fix this > without dropping the feature, then so be it. > Govind is working on to handle this properly either by instantiating new WMI-TLV table for WCNxxxx or by adding conditional check in exiting path. -Rajkumar