Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 :) All I need is an ack from DT maintainers for this patch. DT maintainers: I think this is the best option and I can't think of any other solution so I would prefer to take this approach to our ath.git tree if it's ok for you. IIRC someone suggested testing for firmware version string but I suspect that has the same problem as the firmware-N.bin approach: ath10k gets the firmware version too late. And besides it's difficult to maintain such a list in ath10k, it would always need kernel updates when there's a new firmware etc. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
