On 4/30/2024 6:48 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 4/29/2024 12:36 AM, Tamizh Chelvam Raja wrote: >> >>> From: Venkateswara Naralasetty <quic_vnaralas@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> If STATUS_BUFFER_DONE is not set for a monitor status ring entry, >>> we don't process the status ring until STATUS_BUFFER_DONE set >>> for that status ring entry. >>> >>> During LMAC reset it may happen that hardware will not write >>> STATUS_BUFFER_DONE tlv in status buffer, in that case we end up >>> waiting for STATUS_BUFFER_DONE leading to backpressure on monitor >>> status ring. >>> >>> To fix the issue, when HP(Head Pointer) + 1 entry is peeked and if DMA >>> is not done and if HP + 2 entry's DMA done is set, >>> replenish HP + 1 entry and start processing in next interrupt. >>> If HP + 2 entry's DMA done is not set, poll onto HP + 1 entry DMA >>> done to be set. >>> >>> Also, during monitor attach HP points to the end of the ring and >>> TP(Tail Pointer) points to the start of the ring. >>> Using ath11k_hal_srng_src_peek() may result in processing invalid buffer >>> for the very first interrupt. Since, HW starts writing buffer from TP. >>> >>> To avoid this issue call ath11k_hal_srng_src_next_peek() instead of >>> calling ath11k_hal_srng_src_peek(). >>> >>> Tested-on: IPQ5018 hw1.0 AHB WLAN.HK.2.6.0.1-00861-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Venkateswara Naralasetty <quic_vnaralas@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Co-developed-by: Tamizh Chelvam Raja <quic_tamizhr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Tamizh Chelvam Raja <quic_tamizhr@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Acked-by: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> however note... >> >>> + >>> + /* If done status is missing: >>> + * 1. As per MAC team's suggestion, >>> + * when HP + 1 entry is peeked and if DMA >>> + * is not done and if HP + 2 entry's DMA done >>> + * is set. skip HP + 1 entry and >>> + * start processing in next interrupt. >>> + * 2. If HP + 2 entry's DMA done is not set, >>> + * poll onto HP + 1 entry DMA done to be set. >>> + * Check status for same buffer for next time >>> + * dp_rx_mon_status_srng_process >>> + */ >>> + >>> + reap_status = ath11k_dp_rx_mon_handle_status_buf_done(ab, srng, >>> + rx_ring); >> >> ath11k-check reports: >> >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_rx.c:3116: line length of 95 exceeds 90 columns >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/dp_rx.c:3117: line length of 95 exceeds 90 columns > > Tamizh, please ALWAYS run ath11k-check. We are wasting time for trivial > stuff like this. > >> Kalle, in this case we may want to make an exception since I don't think there >> is a clean way to fix this other than refactoring. > > The new function name looked quite long so I shortened it to > ath11k_dp_rx_mon_buf_done() and the warning is now gone. Does that look > reasonable name? > > Also I removed one unrelated change and removed unnecessary else. Please > check my changes: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/commit/?h=pending&id=6e88d559268779107715008c51e006f7a5f62045 So looking at the 'pending' change I have the observation that ath11k_dp_rx_mon_buf_done() only returns one of two values: DP_MON_STATUS_NO_DMA DP_MON_STATUS_REPLINISH And the return value handling has explicit handling for those values, without any logic for other values: + if (reap_status == DP_MON_STATUS_NO_DMA) + continue; + + if (reap_status == DP_MON_STATUS_REPLINISH) { if we only expect these two values to ever be returned, then we could remove the testing for DP_MON_STATUS_REPLINISH since, it it isn't NO_DMA then it must be REPLINISH Also after this patch is merged, can we have a spelling correcting patch: s/REPLINISH/REPLENISH/ + ath11k_warn(ab, "mon status DONE not set %lx, buf_id %d\n", + FIELD_GET(HAL_TLV_HDR_TAG, tlv->tl), + buf_id); I don't think we should log anything here. we already warn before calling the new function. if we get here it means the next buffer had DONE set so we can replenish the current buffer
