Search Linux Wireless

Re: AP6335 with mainline kernel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Ter, 2017-12-05 at 10:06 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Vanessa Maegima <vanessa.maegima@nxp.
> com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Arend,
> > 
> > On Qui, 2017-11-30 at 13:31 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 11/23/2017 4:24 PM, Vanessa Maegima wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Buildroot:
> > > > > > > > > # dmesg | grep brcmfmac
> > > > > > > > > [    5.343118] brcmfmac: brcmf_fw_map_chip_to_name:
> > > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > brcm/brcmfmac4339-sdio.bin for chip 0x00433
> > > > > > > > > 9(17209) rev 0x000002
> > > > > > > > > [    6.420070] brcmfmac: brcmf_sdio_htclk: HT Avail
> > > > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > > > > (1000000):
> > > > > > > > > clkctl 0x50
> > > > > > > > > [    6.427722] brcmfmac:
> > > > > > > > > brcmf_sdio_htclk:   pmucontrol   =
> > > > > > > > > 01774381
> > > > > > > > > [    6.434865] brcmfmac:
> > > > > > > > > brcmf_sdio_htclk:   pmustatus    =
> > > > > > > > > 0000002a
> > > > > > > > > [    6.441174] brcmfmac:
> > > > > > > > > brcmf_sdio_htclk:   min_res_mask
> > > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > > 0fcaff77
> > > > > > > > > [    6.447379] brcmfmac:
> > > > > > > > > brcmf_sdio_htclk:   max_res_mask
> > > > > > > > > =
> > > > > > > > > 0fceff77
> > > It toook me a while to look into this. Unfortunately I do not
> > > have a
> > > 4339 to replicate your issue. The closest I have is a 4335. What
> > > looks
> > > wrong here is the max_res_mask because the HT Avail resource is
> > > bit
> > > 29
> > > which needs to be set in max_res_mask in order to make the
> > > request
> > > work.
> > > On my 4335 the max_res_mask is 0x7fffffff before calling
> > > brcmf_sdio_htclk(). So that is the cause of the failure in
> > > brcmf_sdio_htclk(). However, now the question is why it is not
> > > properly set.
> > > 
> > > Between your device and mine there is once discrepancy in the
> > > pmucontrol
> > > register, ie. bit 9 is set for your device. According the
> > > documentation
> > > the power-on reset value for this bit is 0 and I don't seen any
> > > code
> > > in
> > > our proprietary driver touching it.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the delayed answer, I had some trouble to copy the
> > > > symlinks
> > > > files corretly from /sys/class/devcoredump.
> > > > 
> > > > I uploaded this folder to: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.
> > > > outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Femea01.safelinks.protection.outl
> > > > &data=02%7C01%7Cvanessa.maegima%40nxp.com%7C2190be1208204b984b9
> > > > 608d53bbf8432%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> > > > 80616101839805&sdata=w9DZK5w1GPQaOfDPkB%2FfE2tbUanIxmztdx570FON
> > > > 4t8%3D&reserved=0
> > > > ook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Fopen%3Fid%3D1fosa
> > > > hjLN
> > > > 1K&data=02%7C01%7Cvanessa.maegima%40nxp.com%7Cb643e57876e44140a
> > > > a300
> > > > 8d537ee44aa%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636476
> > > > 4188
> > > > 49464214&sdata=BrsDz0Ncm786g169TQOqFlbWuylR1pc1JklEkqeL%2FA0%3D
> > > > &res
> > > > erved=0
> > > > I5NKS59_aPZdHLpENPFHtK
> > > That worked nicely. So the firmware seems to crash very early. I
> > > have
> > > rebuilt the firmware to provide me more info. Can you redo the
> > > devcoredump trick with that firmware.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Arend
> > Thanks for your reply!
> > 
> > I tried your new firmware and here is the output (new_firmware
> > folder):
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > drive.google.com%2Fdrive%2Ffolders%2F1fosahjLN1KI5NKS59_aPZdHLpENPF
> > Ht&data=02%7C01%7Cvanessa.maegima%40nxp.com%7C2190be1208204b984b960
> > 8d53bbf8432%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6364806161
> > 01839805&sdata=aEzIN7Xi0R45GsEZjcV0HLMb3eIQIroiKOYnNge2Hk8%3D&reser
> > ved=0
> > K
> Hi Vanessa.
> 
> The only file of interest is one named 'data' and it is not present
> in
> the new folder. These core dumps are removed from the filesystem
> after
> some timeout (not sure how long) so that may be the reason.
> 

Hi Arend,

Sorry for this!

I updated the folder on https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fosahjL
N1KI5NKS59_aPZdHLpENPFHtK

Thanks!

Regards,
Vanessa

> Regards,
> Arend
> 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Vanessa




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux