Hi,
On 13-03-18 21:19, Arend van Spriel wrote:
On 3/12/2018 10:45 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
<snip>
Actually had a Sony device with nvram in EFI. Why not just drop this
optimization.
Ok, do you know if that variable had the same name and guid though ?
Because
if it doesn't then this code is not going to work for the Sony case.
If I am not mistaken the name and guid are defined by Broadcom/Microsoft.
Anyways the overhead is small and this only runs once, so I will drop the
check for v2.
Due to XV issue we may want to keep the check for now.
If we're going to do ccode=ALL replacement based on a dmi-model
table then there is no need to keep the check just for the XV stuff.
<snip>
Also simply selecting XV instead is not correct. There is not just one
worldwide domain in the regulatory database of the firmware image.
Right, I've read elsewhere that "X2" is the right magic value to use and
I've tested that on some other devices and that does seem to work.
I've also seen "XY" but the other Asus devices all use "XV" and that
works (makes channel 13 work) so it seemed like a good value.
Can you help me understand this problem a bit better? Is the problem with
"XV" that it may not work with all firmware versions, so on some firmware
versions it will be as bad as using ALL which the firmware also does not
understand? Or do all firmwares understand XV / XY / X2 but are there
subtle differences?
The firmware has a per-device recipe of what should be in the regulatory database and per release branch it can differ. So for the same device customer A could get XV and XY in the firmware regdb and customer B could get XY and X2.
Hmm, so whether XV, XY and/or X2 works depends on the firmware used,
not on the model of the laptop? That means that:
So how do you suggest we deal with this?
One solution I see is:
1) check for ccode=ALL
2) if found use DMI strings to match the specific model and set a different
ccode based on the model (so for now use XV for the T200TA only)
3) if found and the model is not known, warn about this and do nothing
Would that work for you ?
I think so.
This is no good, because the model of the laptop and which firmware build
gets used are not really coupled. I think instead it would make more sense
to assume the firmware builds from linux-firmware and have a table of
which ccode=ALL override to use based on wifi-chip model, so in the
case of the T200TA, map brcmfmac43340-sdio to a ccode=XV override
(if ccode=ALL is present).
So basically what I'm suggesting is:
static const char * const ccode_all_map[][2] = {
{ "brcm/brcmfmac43241b4-sdio.txt", "XV\n" }, /* Tested on Asus T100TA, T100CHI */
{ "brcm/brcmfmac43340-sdio.txt", "XV\n" }, /* Tested on Asus T200TA */
};
...
ccode = strnstr((char *)data, "ccode=ALL", data_len);
if (ccode) {
/* lookup fwctx->nvram_name in ccode_all_map */
/* if found patch in override string */
/* else brcmf_info("EFI nvram contains ccode=ALL and %s is missing from ccode-map, please report\n", fwctx->nvram_name) */
}
So we actually decide what to replace all with based on the
firmware name, rather then on the laptop model, does that make
sense?
I hope to get some more clarification from our regulatory team about the use of ALL and XV. Could you tell me what happens with T200TA when you leave ccode=ALL in place. What output do you get from "iw list"? Only channels 1 to 11 and no 5G? Or does it only have 2G.
With ccode=ALL in place, I do see channel 13, but not 14 and channel 13 does
not work (the machine does not associate with my AP which is configured at chan 13)
if I change it to "XV" then channel 13 does work, and shortly after associating
channel 14 also shows up in the "iwlist wlan0 freq" output.
As for 5GHz on the T200TA that is really a different topic, I can access 5GHz wifi
under Windows but not under Linux, the channels are there in "iwlist wlan0 freq"
but "wlist wlan0 scan" only shows 2.4 GHz APs. I've tried replacing the nvram
with the file from the Windows partition referenced by the .inf file there,
but that does not help. I'm not sure yet if this is a firmware / nvram / driver
problem, so as said this really is a different topic.
if (raw_nvram)
- bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents(data);
+ kvfree(data); /* vfree for bcm47xx case / kfree for efi case */
While this clearly works I can not say I like this. If you want to do
it this way, please submit a patch to remove
bcm47xx_nvram_release_contents() as it is no longer needed since we
now have kvfree(). From maintainance perspective also drop the postfix
comment. We just might end up doing vmalloc in efi case at some point
and this would likely be forgotten.
It might be better if I replace the raw_nvram variable which is poorly
named with
a "bool free_bcm47xx_nvram = false;" and add a "bool kfree_nvram = false;"
Would that work for you ?
Sure.
Ok, I will do that for v2 then as soon as we've figured out how to deal with
the ccode=ALL issue.
Regards,
Hans
