On 30/04/2024 06:06, Kalle Valo wrote: > Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 04:04:51PM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote: >> >>> The ath10k driver waits for an "MSA_READY" indicator >>> to complete initialization. If the indicator is not >>> received, then the device remains unusable. >>> >>> cf. ath10k_qmi_driver_event_work() >>> >>> Several msm8998-based devices are affected by this issue. >>> Oddly, it seems safe to NOT wait for the indicator, and >>> proceed immediately when QMI_EVENT_SERVER_ARRIVE. >>> >>> Jeff Johnson wrote: >>> >>> The feedback I received was "it might be ok to change all ath10k qmi >>> to skip waiting for msa_ready", and it was pointed out that ath11k >>> (and ath12k) do not wait for it. >>> >>> However with so many deployed devices, "might be ok" isn't a strong >>> argument for changing the default behavior. >>> >>> Kalle Valo first suggested setting a bit in firmware-5.bin to trigger >>> work-around in the driver. However, firmware-5.bin is parsed too late. >>> So we are stuck with a DT property. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Hugues Husson <phhusson@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> This says "Pierre-Hugues certifies the origin of the patch" then "Marc >> certifies the origin of the patch". This would have to imply that >> Pierre-Hugues authored the patch, but you're listed as the author... >> >> Perhaps a suitable answer to this question would be to add >> "Co-developed-by: Pierre-Hugues ..." above his s-o-b, which implies that >> the two of you jointly came up with this and both certify the origin. > > BTW I can add that in the pending branch, no need to resend because of > this. Just need guidance from Marc. I typed this patch all by myself with my grubby little paws. You can drop PH's S-o-b. >> Other than that, I think this looks good, so please upon addressing this >> problem feel free to add my: >> >> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks, I'll then add this as well. Cool. Almost there :)
