On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:04:06AM +0800, Baochen Qiang wrote: > > > On 3/1/2024 3:35 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On 2/29/2024 6:12 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:22:41AM +0800, Baochen Qiang wrote: > > > > > ath11k fails to resume: > > > > > > > > > > ath11k_pci 0000:06:00.0: timeout while waiting for restart complete > > > > > > > > > > This happens because when calling mhi_sync_power_up() the MHI subsystem > > > > > eventually calls device_add() from mhi_create_devices() but the device > > > > > creation is deferred: > > > > > > > > > > mhi mhi0_IPCR: Driver qcom_mhi_qrtr force probe deferral > > > > > > > > > > The reason for deferring device creation is explained in dpm_prepare(): > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > * It is unsafe if probing of devices will happen during suspend or > > > > > * hibernation and system behavior will be unpredictable in this case. > > > > > * So, let's prohibit device's probing here and defer their probes > > > > > * instead. The normal behavior will be restored in dpm_complete(). > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > Because the device probe is deferred, the qcom_mhi_qrtr_probe() is not > > > > > called and thus MHI channels are not prepared: > > > > > > > > > > So what this means that QRTR is not delivering messages and the QMI connection > > > > > is not working between ath11k and the firmware, resulting a failure in firmware > > > > > initialization. > > > > > > > > > > To fix this add new function mhi_power_down_keep_dev() which doesn't destroy > > > > > the devices for channels during power down. This way we avoid probe defer issue > > > > > and finally can get ath11k hibernation working with the following patches. > > > > > > > > > > Tested-on: WCN6855 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-03125-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_LITE-3.6510.30 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Did Kalle co-author this patch? If so, his Co-developed-by tag should > > > > be added. > > > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure... I would like Kalle's thoughts on this. > > > > IIRC I did only some simple cleanup before submitting the patch so I > > don't think Co-developed-by is justified. I'm also fine with removing my > > Signed-off-by. > Thanks Kalle. > > Hi Mani, so according to Kalle's comments, I'd like to keep the patch as is. > No. Either remove his signed off by (as indicated by Kalle) or add a co-developed-by tag. Keeping just a signed-off-by tag is wrong. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
