On 26 September 2017 at 12:11, Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 25-09-17 11:30, James Hughes wrote: >> >> On 25 September 2017 at 10:26, James Hughes >> <james.hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 25 September 2017 at 09:18, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The firmware uses a mailbox to communicate to the host what is going >>>>> on. In the driver we validate the bit received. Various people seen >>>>> the following message: >>>>> >>>>> brcmfmac: brcmf_sdio_hostmail: Unknown mailbox data content: 0x40012 >>>>> >>>>> Bit 4 is cause of this message, but this actually indicates the >>>>> firmware >>>>> has halted. Handle this bit by giving a more meaningful error message. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Franky Lin <franky.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> >>>> Failed to compile: >>>> >>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c: In function >>>> ‘brcmf_p2p_escan’: >>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c:695:23: error: >>>> ‘BRCMF_SCANTYPE_ACTIVE’ undeclared (first use in this function) >>>> sparams->scan_type = BRCMF_SCANTYPE_ACTIVE; >>>> ^ >>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c:695:23: note: >>>> each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it >>>> appears in >>>> make[6]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.o] >>>> Error 1 >>>> make[6]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >>>> make[5]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac] Error 2 >>>> make[4]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211] Error 2 >>>> make[3]: *** [drivers/net/wireless/broadcom] Error 2 >>>> make[2]: *** [drivers/net/wireless] Error 2 >>>> make[1]: *** [drivers/net] Error 2 >>>> make: *** [drivers] Error 2 >>>> >>>> 7 patches set to Changes Requested. >>>> >>>> 9948825 [1/7] brcmfmac: handle FWHALT mailbox indication >>>> 9948831 [2/7] brcmfmac: disable packet filtering in promiscuous mode >>>> 9948829 [3/7] brcmfmac: cleanup brcmf_cfg80211_escan() function >>>> 9948833 [4/7] brcmfmac: use msecs_to_jiffies() instead of calculation >>>> using HZ >>>> 9948827 [5/7] brcmfmac: get rid of brcmf_cfg80211_escan() function >>>> 9948823 [6/7] brcmfmac: get rid of struct >>>> brcmf_cfg80211_info::active_scan field >>>> 9948835 [7/7] brcmfmac: move configuration of probe request IEs >>>> >>>> -- >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9948825/ >>>> >>>> >>>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches >>>> >>> >>> We (Raspberry Pi) currently have an issue open with Cypress to try and >>> determine the cause of the firmware lockup which results in this >>> mailbox error, we have some custom firmware that has better firmware >>> diagnostics which we have been reporting back to Cypress. Not had any >>> progress so far as far as I know. Does this kernel side fix help our >>> users in any way or is it simply a better error message? >>> >>> James >> >> >> Sorry, should have read the patch first, simply a change to the error >> reporting. I'll try and determine how far Cypress have got with the >> firmware. > > > Hi James, > > This was indeed only about getting rid of the "unknown mailbox" message. The > times I have seen this also brcmf_sdio_checkdied() was printing a message > that a firmware trap occurred. Does the forensics file in debugfs show > anything for your issue or does the probe fail resulting in a detach. > > Regards, > Arend We have a lengthy thread on our github with as much information as I know (https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/1342). Other Pi users seem to have more luck replicating it that I do (no change there), although I have a rig running now waiting for it to happen. We are fairly sure that the firmware is locking up for some reason, probably in a high usage, low reception environment, but I am not sure if people can recover the wireless without reboot. We have test firmware from Cypress with more diagnostics in the probable fault area to help track it down, previous version have provided useful forensics, but nothing on the latest firmware so far. James
