Hi,
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 12:05 PM Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There can be cases where the board-2.bin does not contain
> any BDF matching the chip-id+board-id+variant combination.
> This causes the wlan probe to fail and renders wifi unusable.
> For e.g. if the board-2.bin has default BDF as:
> bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67 but for some reason the board-id
> on the wlan chip is not programmed and read 0xff as the
> default value. In such cases there won't be any matching BDF
> because the board-2.bin will be searched with following:
> bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=ff
> To address these scenarios, there can be an option to provide
> fallback default BDF name in the device tree. If none of the
> BDF names match then the board-2.bin file can be searched with
> default BDF names assigned in the device tree.
>
> The default BDF name can be set as:
> wifi@a000000 {
> status = "okay";
> qcom,ath10k-default-bdf = "bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67";
Rather than add a new device tree property, wouldn't it be good enough
to leverage the existing variant? Right now I think that the board
file contains:
'bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67.bin'
'bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67,qmi-chip-id=320,variant=GO_LAZOR.bin'
'bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67,qmi-chip-id=320,variant=GO_POMPOM.bin'
'bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67,qmi-chip-id=4320,variant=GO_LAZOR.bin'
'bus=snoc,qmi-board-id=67,qmi-chip-id=4320,variant=GO_POMPOM.bin'
...and, on lazor for instance, we have:
qcom,ath10k-calibration-variant = "GO_LAZOR";
The problem you're trying to solve is that on some early lazor
prototype hardware we didn't have the "board-id" programmed we could
get back 0xff from the hardware. As I understand it 0xff always means
"unprogrammed".
It feels like you could just have a special case such that if the
hardware reports board ID of 0xff and you don't get a "match" that you
could just treat 0xff as a wildcard. That means that you'd see the
"variant" in the device tree and pick one of the "GO_LAZOR" entries.
Anyway, I guess it's up to the people who spend more time in this file
which they'd prefer, but that seems like it'd be simple and wouldn't
require a bindings addition...
-Doug
