07.01.2020 10:23, Jean-Philippe Brucker пишет:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 02:15:18AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 06.01.2020 22:19, Jean-Philippe Brucker пишет:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 05:37:58PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> I haven't seen any driver probe failures due to OOB on NVIDIA Tegra,
>>>> only suspend-resume was problematic due to the unbalanced OOB
>>>> interrupt-wake enabling.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe checking whether OOB interrupt-wake works by invoking
>>>> enable_irq_wake() during brcmf_sdiod_intr_register() causes trouble for
>>>> the cubietruck board.
>>>>
>>>> @Jean-Philippe, could you please try this change (on top of recent
>>>> linux-next):
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay, linux-next doesn't boot for me at the moment and I
>>> have little time to investigate why, so I might retry closer to the merge
>>> window.
>>>
>>> However, isn't the interrupt-wake issue independent from the problem
>>> (introduced in v4.17) that my patch fixes? I applied "brcmfmac: Keep OOB
>>> wake-interrupt disabled when it shouldn't be enabled" on v5.5-rc5 and it
>>> doesn't seem to cause a regression, but the wifi only works if I apply my
>>> patch as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jean
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>>>> index b684a5b6d904..80d7106b10a9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/bcmsdh.c
>>>> @@ -115,13 +115,6 @@ int brcmf_sdiod_intr_register(struct brcmf_sdio_dev
>>>> *sdiodev)
>>>> }
>>>> sdiodev->oob_irq_requested = true;
>>>>
>>>> - ret = enable_irq_wake(pdata->oob_irq_nr);
>>>> - if (ret != 0) {
>>>> - brcmf_err("enable_irq_wake failed %d\n", ret);
>>>> - return ret;
>>>> - }
>>>> - disable_irq_wake(pdata->oob_irq_nr);
>>>> -
>>>> sdio_claim_host(sdiodev->func1);
>>>>
>>>> if (sdiodev->bus_if->chip == BRCM_CC_43362_CHIP_ID) {
>>
>> Hello Jean,
>>
>> Could you please clarify whether you applied [1] and then the above
>> snippet on top of it or you only applied [1] without the snippet?
>
> I applied [1] without the snippet
>
> Thanks,
> Jean
>
>>
>> [1] brcmfmac: Keep OOB wake-interrupt disabled when it shouldn't be enabled
Will you be able to test *with* the snippet? I guess chances that it
will make any difference are not high, nevertheless will be good to know
for sure.
