Hi Yin, Yes, it seems like response is FW specific other than chip spesific. 2015-11-12 6:37 GMT+00:00 fengwei.yin <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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 >> > -- Best regards, Eugene -- 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
