On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:00 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > wi nk <wink@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:15 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Stefani Seibold <stefani@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > Am Donnerstag, den 12.11.2020, 02:10 +0100 schrieb wi nk: > >> >> I've yet to see any instability after 45 minutes of exercising it, I > >> >> do see a couple of messages that came out of the driver: > >> >> > >> >> [ 8.963389] ath11k_pci 0000:55:00.0: Unknown eventid: 0x16005 > >> >> [ 11.342317] ath11k_pci 0000:55:00.0: Unknown eventid: 0x1d00a > >> >> > >> >> then when it associates: > >> >> > >> >> [ 16.718895] wlp85s0: send auth to ec:08:6b:27:01:ea (try 1/3) > >> >> [ 16.722636] wlp85s0: authenticated > >> >> [ 16.724150] wlp85s0: associate with ec:08:6b:27:01:ea (try 1/3) > >> >> [ 16.726486] wlp85s0: RX AssocResp from ec:08:6b:27:01:ea > >> >> (capab=0x411 status=0 aid=8) > >> >> [ 16.738443] wlp85s0: associated > >> >> [ 16.764966] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): wlp85s0: link becomes > >> >> ready > >> >> > >> >> The adapter is achieving around 500 mbps on my gigabit connection, my > >> >> 2018 mbp sees around 650, so it's doing pretty well so far. > >> >> > >> >> Stefani - when you applied the patch that Kalle shared, which branch > >> >> did you apply it to? I applied it to ath11k-qca6390-bringup and when > >> >> I revert 7fef431be9c9 there is a small merge conflict I needed to > >> >> resolve. I wonder if either the starting branch, or your chosen > >> >> resolution are related to the instability you see (or I'm just lucky > >> >> so far! :)). > >> >> > >> > > >> > I used the vanilla kernel tree > >> > https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/t/linux-5.10-rc2.tar.gz. On top of this > >> > i applied the > >> > > >> > RFT-ath11k-pci-support-platforms-with-one-MSI-vector.patch > >> > > >> > and reverted the patch 7fef431be9c9 > >> > >> I did also my testing on v5.10-rc2 and I recommend to use that as the > >> baseline when debuggin these ath11k problems. It helps to compare the > >> results if everyone have the same baseline. > >> > >> -- > >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ > >> > >> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches > > > > Absolutely, I'll rebuild to 5.10 later today and apply the same series > > of patches and report back. > > Great, thanks. > > > I'll also test out the patch on both versions from Carl to fix > > resuming. It stands to reason that we may be seeing another regression > > between Stefani (5.10) and myself (5.9 bringup branch) as I don't see > > any disconnections or instability once the interface is online. > > Yeah, there is something strange happening between v5.9 and v5.10 we > have not yet figured out. Most likely it has something to do with memory > allocations and DMA transfers failing, but no clear understanding yet. > > But to keep things simple let's only discuss the MSI problem on this > thread, and discuss the timeouts in the another thread: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/2020-November/000641.html > > I'll include you and other reporters to that thread. > > -- > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches Ok, I've tried a clean checkout of 5.10-rc2 with the one MSI patch applied and 7fef431be9c9 reverted. I can't get my machine to boot into anything usable with that configuration. I'm running ubuntu so its starting right into X and sometime between showing the available users and me clicking the icon to login the machine freezes. I can see in the system tray that the wifi adapter is being activated and appears to have associated with an AP, I just can't do much beyond that as the keyboard backlight wakes up, but the caps lock key doesn't work. I see similar behavior with the 5.9 configuration, but after a reboot or two I win whatever race is occuring. With 5.10, I tried maybe 10-15 times with 0 success.
