Hi Loic,
On 2018-04-25 13:28, Loic Poulain wrote:
Hi Marcel,
+Balakrishna Godavarthi, I've just seen that his recent patch for
wcn3990 support deals with the same download issue.
On 24 April 2018 at 17:13, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Loic,
This patch adds rampatch download compatibility for ROME >= 3.2.
Starting with ROME 3.2, the 'download mode' field of the rampatch
header indicates if the controller acknowledges (or not) the received
rampatch segments. If not, we need to send all the segments without
expecting any event from the controller (except for the last
segment).
Goal is (I assume) to speed-up rampatch download.
WHYYYYYYYYYY ???
I have done the measurement with the Intel chips and it is
insignificant on Linux. The Linux USB subsystem is a lot better than
the one from Windows.
To be honest, I have no much information (so maybe Windows
optimization is the point), I mainly extracted info from a Yocto
hciattach patch:
https://github.com/boundarydevices/meta-boundary/blob/krogoth/recipes-connectivity/bluez5/bluez5/0001-hciattach-add-QCA9377-Tuffello-support.patch
My module version use HCI UART as transport layer.
Is there any chance we can just switch this back on and keep waiting
for the event?
I tried to change the fw/rampatch header on the fly to 'standard
download mode' before starting flashing.
It seems to be supported since pretty all segments are correctly sent
and acked by the vendor event.
However the last segment is nacked:
Bluetooth: hci0: TLV with error stat 0x0 rtype 0x4 (0x3)
I suppose the rampatch contains a checksum which is verified once
download is complete, hacking the header would cause a corruption of
the rampatch, leading to this NACK.
So in theory, the download behavior seems to depend only on the
rampatch file(header) and is not hard-coded on controller side.
Since rampatchs are not under our control, I think it's good to
support this download mode anyway.
Regards,
Loic
Thank you for adding me to loop, is the header size of RAM patch file
remains same for ROME < 3.2 and ROME >= 3.2, what about the header
format, do we have same header format for different ROME versions, even
mismatch of header will not break any execution, but it may show wrong
data in kernel logs.
Regards
Balakrishna.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
