On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 18:43, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:28 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 01:51, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 2:31 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Add adaptations to the mwifiex driver.
> > > > - Keep existing syncronous reset behaviour if the SDIO card has a single
> > > > func driver.
> > > >
> > > > It has turned out that it's not a good idea to try to power cycle and to
> > > > re-initialize the SDIO card, as currently done through mmc_hw_reset(). This
> > > > because there may be multiple SDIO funcs attached to the same SDIO card and
> > > > some of the others that didn't execute the call to mmc_hw_reset(), may then
> > > > simply experience an undefined behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > The following patches in this series attempts to address this problem, by
> > > > reworking the mmc_hw_reset() behaviour for SDIO and by adopting the Marvel
> > > > mwifiex driver to these changes.
> > > >
> > > > Note that, I don't have the HW at hand so the the code has only compile tested.
> > > > Test on HW is greatly appreciated!
> > > >
> > > > Ulf Hansson (3):
> > > > mwifiex: Re-work support for SDIO HW reset
> > > > mmc: core: Drop check for mmc_card_is_removable() in mmc_rescan()
> > > > mmc: core: Re-work HW reset for SDIO cards
> > > >
> > > > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 12 +++-----
> > > > drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 2 ++
> > > > drivers/mmc/core/sdio.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > > drivers/mmc/core/sdio_bus.c | 9 +++++-
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.c | 6 +++-
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/main.h | 1 +
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-------
> > > > include/linux/mmc/card.h | 1 +
> > > > 8 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I put this on rk3288-veyron-jerry atop v5.4-rc7 and I could run my
> > > test case for a while, AKA I got over 50 cycles of:
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > for i in $(seq 1000); do
> > > echo "LOOP $i --------"
> > > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/mwifiex/mlan0/reset
> > >
> > > while true; do
> > > if ! ping6 -w15 -c1 "${GW}" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> > > fail=$(( fail + 1 ))
> > > echo "Fail WiFi ${fail}"
> > > if [[ ${fail} == 3 ]]; then
> > > exit 1
> > > fi
> > > else
> > > fail=0
> > > break
> > > fi
> > > done
> > >
> > > hciconfig hci0 down
> > > sleep 1
> > > if ! hciconfig hci0 up; then
> > > echo "Fail BT"
> > > exit 1
> > > fi
> > >
> > > done
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > NOTE: with no patches I couldn't even get my test case to pass w/out
> > > the BT bits and I swear that used to work before. ...but I didn't
> > > debug since the end result (with full card hotplug) is happy-working
> > > for me. I'll still use it as further argument that (IMO) full unplug
> > > / plug of the card is better it uses more standard code paths and is
> > > less likely to break. ;-)
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks, I add this to the series and make a re-spin.
> >
> > What do you think about tagging the patches for stable?
> >
> > I guess there is a risk that we may "break" the other two users of
> > mmc_hw_reset(). But, as I said, in that case those needs to be fixed
> > anyways.
>
> I'm not sure how to make that judgement call. Certainly it would help
> anyone using the Marvell case and the Marvell case was pretty broken
> before.
>
> How about this: if you can get a Tested-by from the other users then
> I'd be good with a general CC: stable. Otherwise, I'd be OK with a CC
> to stable for 5.4, but I'd be a little hesitant to send it back to
> older kernels (even though it certainly applies and fixes problems).
This makes sense, let's go with this!
> At least in the case of Chrome OS we already have a workable solution
> for our 4.19 tree (my previous patches), and I'd guess anyone testing
> on real hardware is either not seeing problems or has their own
> private patches already. If things have been sitting stable on 5.4
> for a while and no problems were reported, then we could consider
> going back further?
Yep!
That said, the v3 series is queued up for next and by adding a stable
tag for 5.4+.
Kind regards
Uffe
