Hi Franky,
[I'm very unfamiliar with this driver, but I had the same questions as
Guenter, I think:]
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:57:59PM -0800, Franky Lin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:05 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:14:45PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/sdio.c
> > > > @@ -1938,6 +1938,8 @@ static uint brcmf_sdio_readframes(struct brcmf_sdio *bus, uint maxframes)
> > > > if (brcmf_sdio_hdparse(bus, bus->rxhdr, &rd_new,
> > > > BRCMF_SDIO_FT_NORMAL)) {
> > > > rd->len = 0;
> > > > + brcmf_sdio_rxfail(bus, true, true);
> > > > + sdio_release_host(bus->sdiodev->func1);
> > >
> > > I don't know much about this driver so I don't personally know if
> > > "true, true" is the correct thing to pass to brcmf_sdio_rxfail(), but
> > > it seems plausible. Definitely the fix to call sdio_release_host() is
> > > sane.
> > >
> > > Thus, unless someone knows for sure that brcmf_sdio_rxfail()'s
> > > parameters should be different:
> > >
> > Actually, looking at brcmf_sdio_hdparse() and its other callers,
> > I think it may not be needed at all - other callers don't do it, and
> > there already are some calls to brcmf_sdio_rxfail() in that function.
> > It would be nice though to get a confirmation before I submit v2.
>
> I think invoking rxfail with both abort and NACK set to true is the
> right thing to do here so that the pipeline can be properly purged.
Thanks for looking here. I'm not sure I totally understand your answer:
brcmf_sdio_hdparse() already calls brcmf_sdio_rxfail() in several error
cases. Is it really OK to call it twice in a row?
Brian
