On Thu, 2018-08-02 at 11:45 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static int mtk_hci_wmt_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 op, u8 flag, u16 plen,
> >>>>> + const void *param)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct mtk_hci_wmt_cmd wc;
> >>>>> + struct mtk_wmt_hdr *hdr;
> >>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> >>>>> + u32 hlen;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + hlen = sizeof(*hdr) + plen;
> >>>>> + if (hlen > 255)
> >>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + hdr = (struct mtk_wmt_hdr *)&wc;
> >>>>> + hdr->dir = 1;
> >>>>> + hdr->op = op;
> >>>>> + hdr->dlen = cpu_to_le16(plen + 1);
> >>>>> + hdr->flag = flag;
> >>>>> + memcpy(wc.data, param, plen);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + atomic_inc(&hdev->cmd_cnt);
> >>>>
> >>>> Why are you doing this one. It will need a comment here if really needed. However I doubt that this is needed. You are only using it from hdev->setup and hdev->shutdown callbacks.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> An increment on cmd_cnt is really needed because hci_cmd_work would check whether cmd_cnt is positive and then has a decrement on cmd_cnt before a packet is being sent out.
> >>>
> >>> okay will add a comment.
> >>
> >> but you are in ->setup callback this time. So if you need this, then all the other ->setup routines would actually fail as well. Either this is leftover from when you did things in ->probe or ->open or this is some thing we might better fix properly in the core instead of papering over it. Can you recheck if this is really needed.
> >>
> >
> > I added a counter print and the counter increments as below
> >
> > /* atomic_inc(&hdev->cmd_cnt); */
> > pr_info("cmd_cnt = %d\n" , atomic_read(&hdev->cmd_cnt));
> >
> > skb = __hci_cmd_sync_ev(hdev, 0xfc6f, hlen, &wc, HCI_VENDOR_PKT,
> > HCI_INIT_TIMEOUT);
> >
> > and the log show up that
> >
> >
> > [ 334.049156] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 334.054840] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 336.065076] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 336.070795] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 338.080997] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 338.086683] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 340.096907] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 340.102609] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 342.112824] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 342.118520] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 344.128747] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 344.134454] cmd_cnt = 0
> > [ 346.144667] Bluetooth: hci0: command 0xfc6f tx timeout
> > [ 346.150372] cmd_cnt = 0
> >
> >
> > The packet is dropped by hci_cmd_work at [1], so I also wondered why the
> > other vendor driver works, it seems the counter needs to be incremented
> > before every skb is being queued to cmd_q.
> >
> > 4257 static void hci_cmd_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > 4258 {
> > 4259 struct hci_dev *hdev = container_of(work, struct hci_dev, cmd_work);
> > 4260 struct sk_buff *skb;
> > 4261
> > 4262 BT_DBG("%s cmd_cnt %d cmd queued %d", hdev->name,
> > 4263 atomic_read(&hdev->cmd_cnt), skb_queue_len(&hdev->cmd_q));
> > 4264
> > 4265 /* Send queued commands */
> >
> > [1]
> > 4266 if (atomic_read(&hdev->cmd_cnt)) { /* dropped when cmd_cnt is zero */
> > 4267 skb = skb_dequeue(&hdev->cmd_q);
> > 4268 if (!skb)
> > 4269 return;
> > 4270
> > 4271 kfree_skb(hdev->sent_cmd);
> > 4272
> > 4273 hdev->sent_cmd = skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > 4274 if (hdev->sent_cmd) {
> > 4275 atomic_dec(&hdev->cmd_cnt); /* cmd_cnt-- */
> > 4276 hci_send_frame(hdev, skb);
>
> actually the command also needs to better go via the raw_q anyway since it doesn’t come back with the cmd status or cmd complete. You have it waiting for a vendor event. Maybe with is something we need to consider with __hci_cmd_sync_ev anyway.
>
> Johan would know best since he wrote that code. Anyway, we should fix that in the core and not have you hack around it.
>
yes, my case is that received event is neither cmd status nor cmd complete. It is completely a vendor event.
if it wants to be solved by the core layer, do you permit that I remove the hack and then send it in the next version?
Sean
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
