Hi Bjorn,
On 2015/11/12 12:50, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Bob Copeland <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:02:41AM -0500, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
From: Andy Green <andy.green@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Andy Green <andy.green@xxxxxxxxxx>
On wcn3620, firmware response to trigger_ba uses the new, larger
"v2" format
- ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check(wcn->hal_buf, wcn->hal_rsp_len);
+ ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2(wcn, wcn->hal_buf,
+ wcn->hal_rsp_len);
It's unclear from the changelog -- is it safe to call
wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2 on the 3660/3680 as well?
Is wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check() still needed?
I had to introduce this on one of my 3680 devices recently to silence
the error described originally by Andy. So it not only seems safe but
seems required. But still, based on how the code was written this
doesn't seem to be the case on all versions of the firmware or all
chips(?)
Thanks for the information. It confirm my thought that the change sticks
to new firmware instead of specific platform.
But we couldn't tell which version of firmware need this new format. Andy's
original change has two conditions to use the new format:
1. The platform is 3620. - this should be removed because you need the same
change for 3680. And patch v2 already remove it.
2. The packet size from firmware is larger than old response size. I suppose
this one works in most case.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
