Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue 03 Nov 01:48 CST 2020, Amit Pundir wrote: > >> Hi Rob, Bjorn, Kalle, >> >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 19:10, Bjorn Andersson >> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue 29 Sep 14:08 CDT 2020, Rob Herring wrote: >> > >> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:59:41PM +0530, Amit Pundir wrote: >> > > > There are firmware versions which do not support host capability >> > > > QMI request. We suspect either the host cap is not implemented or >> > > > there may be firmware specific issues, but apparently there seem >> > > > to be a generation of firmware that has this particular behavior. >> > > > >> > > > For example, firmware build on Xiaomi Poco F1 (sdm845) phone: >> > > > "QC_IMAGE_VERSION_STRING=WLAN.HL.2.0.c3-00257-QCAHLSWMTPLZ-1" >> > > > >> > > > If we do not skip the host cap QMI request on Poco F1, then we >> > > > get a QMI_ERR_MALFORMED_MSG_V01 error message in the >> > > > ath10k_qmi_host_cap_send_sync(). But this error message is not >> > > > fatal to the firmware nor to the ath10k driver and we can still >> > > > bring up the WiFi services successfully if we just ignore it. >> > > > >> > > > Hence introducing this DeviceTree quirk to skip host capability >> > > > QMI request for the firmware versions which do not support this >> > > > feature. >> > > >> > > So if you change the WiFi firmware, you may force a DT change too. Those >> > > are pretty independent things otherwise. >> > > >> > >> > Yes and that's not good. But I looked at somehow derive this from >> > firmware version numbers etc and it's not working out, so I'm out of >> > ideas for alternatives. >> > >> > > Why can't you just always ignore this error? If you can't deal with this >> > > entirely in the driver, then it should be part of the WiFi firmware so >> > > it's always in sync. >> > > >> > >> > Unfortunately the firmware versions I've hit this problem on has gone >> > belly up when receiving this request, that's why I asked Amit to add a >> > flag to skip it. >> >> So what is next for this DT quirk? >> > > Rob, we still have this problem and we've not come up with any way to > determine in runtime that we need to skip this part of the > initialization. This is firmware version specific, right? There's also enum ath10k_fw_features which is embedded within firmware-N.bin, we could add a new flag there. But that means that a correct firmware-N.bin is needed for each firmware version, not sure if that would work out. Just throwing out ideas here. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
