Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:32 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On wcn3990 we have "per_ce_irq = true". That makes the >> > ath10k_ce_interrupt_summary() function always return 0xfff. The >> > ath10k_ce_per_engine_service_any() function will see this and think >> > that _all_ copy engines have an interrupt. Without checking, the >> > ath10k_ce_per_engine_service() assumes that if it's called that the >> > "copy complete" (cc) interrupt fired. This combination seems bad. >> > >> > Let's add a check to make sure that the "copy complete" interrupt >> > actually fired in ath10k_ce_per_engine_service(). >> > >> > This might fix a hard-to-reproduce failure where it appears that the >> > copy complete handlers run before the copy is really complete. >> > Specifically a symptom was that we were seeing this on a Qualcomm >> > sc7180 board: >> > arm-smmu 15000000.iommu: Unhandled context fault: >> > fsr=0x402, iova=0x7fdd45780, fsynr=0x30003, cbfrsynra=0xc1, cb=10 >> > >> > Even on platforms that don't have wcn3990 this still seems like it >> > would be a sane thing to do. Specifically the current IRQ handler >> > comments indicate that there might be other misc interrupt sources >> > firing that need to be cleared. If one of those sources was the one >> > that caused the IRQ handler to be called it would also be important to >> > double-check that the interrupt we cared about actually fired. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> ath10k firmwares work very differently, on what hardware and firmware did you >> test this? I'll add that information to the commit log. > > I am running on a Qualcomm sc7180 SoC. Sorry, I was unclear, I meant the ath10k hardware :) I guess WCN3990 but what firmware version? -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
