Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
development.
After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
[ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
[ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
[ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
[ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
[ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
[ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
[ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
[ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
[ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
[ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
[ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
[ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
>
> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
> development.
> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
>
>
> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
Thanks for reporting!
We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
linux-next. Can you retry it then?
--
Cheers,
Luca.
On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
>>
>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
>> development.
>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
>>
>>
>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>
> Thanks for reporting!
>
> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
>
Thanks, I'll re-test tomorrow and let you know.
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
>
Heiner
On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
>>
>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
>> development.
>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
>>
>>
>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>
> Thanks for reporting!
>
> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
>
I tested today's linux-next:
The lockdep warning is still there and occurs w/o any traffic on boot.
No CI machine on your side w/ lockdep enabled?
[ 5.845931] ========================================================
[ 5.845938] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
[ 5.845946] 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210212+ #1 Not tainted
[ 5.845954] --------------------------------------------------------
[ 5.845961] irq/131-iwlwifi/2132 just changed the state of lock:
[ 5.845969] ffff8ca6c88600b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
[ 5.846011] but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 5.846019] (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
[ 5.846023]
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
[ 5.846039]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 5.846047] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 5.846055] CPU0 CPU1
[ 5.846061] ---- ----
[ 5.846066] lock(napi_hash_lock);
[ 5.846074] local_irq_disable();
[ 5.846081] lock(&rxq->lock);
[ 5.846090] lock(napi_hash_lock);
[ 5.846099] <Interrupt>
[ 5.846103] lock(&rxq->lock);
[ 5.846110]
*** DEADLOCK ***
"api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is also still there
0024 AX210 version is now detected. When I disable the entry I don't get a GPF
any longer but a WARN() is triggered. Not sure why a WARN() was chosen because
the call trace provides no benefit here. More helpful would be a simple
error message stating: "dev id foo: unknown dev sub id bar. Contact maintainers."
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
>
Heiner
On 12.02.2021 13:21, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
>> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
>>>
>>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
>>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
>>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
>>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
>>> development.
>>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
>>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
>>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
>>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
>>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
>>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
>>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
>>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
>>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
>>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
>>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
>>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>
>> Thanks for reporting!
>>
>> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
>> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
>> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
>>
> I tested today's linux-next:
>
> The lockdep warning is still there and occurs w/o any traffic on boot.
> No CI machine on your side w/ lockdep enabled?
>
>
> [ 5.845931] ========================================================
> [ 5.845938] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> [ 5.845946] 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210212+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 5.845954] --------------------------------------------------------
> [ 5.845961] irq/131-iwlwifi/2132 just changed the state of lock:
> [ 5.845969] ffff8ca6c88600b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> [ 5.846011] but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> [ 5.846019] (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
> [ 5.846023]
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
> [ 5.846039]
> other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 5.846047] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 5.846055] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 5.846061] ---- ----
> [ 5.846066] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> [ 5.846074] local_irq_disable();
> [ 5.846081] lock(&rxq->lock);
> [ 5.846090] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> [ 5.846099] <Interrupt>
> [ 5.846103] lock(&rxq->lock);
> [ 5.846110]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is also still there
>
> 0024 AX210 version is now detected. When I disable the entry I don't get a GPF
> any longer but a WARN() is triggered. Not sure why a WARN() was chosen because
> the call trace provides no benefit here. More helpful would be a simple
> error message stating: "dev id foo: unknown dev sub id bar. Contact maintainers."
>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Luca.
>>
> Heiner
>
One more comment, as I just wanted to upgrade my AX210 firmware version:
Latest version in linux-firmware is 59. Seems you're at 62 already.
And last but not least: The iwlwifi firmware pollutes the linux-firmware
root directory. Wouldn't it be better to move all these firmware files
to something like intel/iwlwifi ?
Maybe for now you could leave symlinks in the root directory.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:15 PM Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12.02.2021 13:21, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
> >>>
> >>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
> >>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
> >>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
> >>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
> >>> development.
> >>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
> >>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
> >>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
> >>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
> >>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
> >>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
> >>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
> >>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
> >>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
> >>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
> >>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
> >>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
> >>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting!
> >>
> >> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
> >> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
> >> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
> >>
> > I tested today's linux-next:
> >
> > The lockdep warning is still there and occurs w/o any traffic on boot.
> > No CI machine on your side w/ lockdep enabled?
> >
> >
> > [ 5.845931] ========================================================
> > [ 5.845938] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> > [ 5.845946] 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210212+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 5.845954] --------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 5.845961] irq/131-iwlwifi/2132 just changed the state of lock:
> > [ 5.845969] ffff8ca6c88600b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> > [ 5.846011] but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> > [ 5.846019] (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
> > [ 5.846023]
> >
> > and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >
> > [ 5.846039]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 5.846047] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > [ 5.846055] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 5.846061] ---- ----
> > [ 5.846066] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> > [ 5.846074] local_irq_disable();
> > [ 5.846081] lock(&rxq->lock);
> > [ 5.846090] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> > [ 5.846099] <Interrupt>
> > [ 5.846103] lock(&rxq->lock);
> > [ 5.846110]
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is also still there
> >
> > 0024 AX210 version is now detected. When I disable the entry I don't get a GPF
> > any longer but a WARN() is triggered. Not sure why a WARN() was chosen because
> > the call trace provides no benefit here. More helpful would be a simple
> > error message stating: "dev id foo: unknown dev sub id bar. Contact maintainers."
> >
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Luca.
> >>
> > Heiner
> >
>
>
> One more comment, as I just wanted to upgrade my AX210 firmware version:
>
> Latest version in linux-firmware is 59. Seems you're at 62 already.
> And last but not least: The iwlwifi firmware pollutes the linux-firmware
> root directory. Wouldn't it be better to move all these firmware files
> to something like intel/iwlwifi ?
> Maybe for now you could leave symlinks in the root directory.
>
I agree with Heiner, that's something I do/did/will not like: the
locations for firmware files.
Here on Debian all firmware files are stored in "/lib/firmware"
directory - which should be plural "firmwares" IMHO.
We already have a lot of directories for vendors like "intel",
"nvidia", "matrox", etc.
If we move intel stuff around then please do it for intel-gfx stuff
like "i915" or ucodes like "intel-ucode".
I vote to move all intel stuff into a single directory called "intel"
where we have sub-dirs:
intel > i915
intel > iwlwifi
intel > ucode (renamed from "intel-ucode")
intel > e100
...
But before doing any move - this should be done for all vendors.
See realtek, broadcom, amd (radeon-gfx), etc.
Means collect all firmware stuff for bluetooth, wlan, ethernet, gfx
etc. of a single vendor.
If we do a cleanup then I vote to do this for all vendors?
Dunno, who is the maintainer of linux-firmware.
Guess we need to change code in the Linux sources to say "load
firmware from </path/to/dirname>".
( Should be one-liners. )
For that request we should open a new thread.
My €0,99 (if I would be a good guy I have written €1,00).
- Sedat -
On 12.02.2021 15:38, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:15 PM Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 12.02.2021 13:21, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
>>>>>
>>>>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
>>>>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
>>>>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
>>>>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
>>>>> development.
>>>>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
>>>>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
>>>>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
>>>>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
>>>>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
>>>>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
>>>>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
>>>>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
>>>>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
>>>>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
>>>>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
>>>>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
>>>>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
>>>>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>>>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reporting!
>>>>
>>>> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
>>>> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
>>>> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
>>>>
>>> I tested today's linux-next:
>>>
>>> The lockdep warning is still there and occurs w/o any traffic on boot.
>>> No CI machine on your side w/ lockdep enabled?
>>>
>>>
>>> [ 5.845931] ========================================================
>>> [ 5.845938] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
>>> [ 5.845946] 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210212+ #1 Not tainted
>>> [ 5.845954] --------------------------------------------------------
>>> [ 5.845961] irq/131-iwlwifi/2132 just changed the state of lock:
>>> [ 5.845969] ffff8ca6c88600b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
>>> [ 5.846011] but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
>>> [ 5.846019] (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
>>> [ 5.846023]
>>>
>>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>>>
>>> [ 5.846039]
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>> [ 5.846047] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>>
>>> [ 5.846055] CPU0 CPU1
>>> [ 5.846061] ---- ----
>>> [ 5.846066] lock(napi_hash_lock);
>>> [ 5.846074] local_irq_disable();
>>> [ 5.846081] lock(&rxq->lock);
>>> [ 5.846090] lock(napi_hash_lock);
>>> [ 5.846099] <Interrupt>
>>> [ 5.846103] lock(&rxq->lock);
>>> [ 5.846110]
>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>
>>> "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is also still there
>>>
>>> 0024 AX210 version is now detected. When I disable the entry I don't get a GPF
>>> any longer but a WARN() is triggered. Not sure why a WARN() was chosen because
>>> the call trace provides no benefit here. More helpful would be a simple
>>> error message stating: "dev id foo: unknown dev sub id bar. Contact maintainers."
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Luca.
>>>>
>>> Heiner
>>>
>>
>>
>> One more comment, as I just wanted to upgrade my AX210 firmware version:
>>
>> Latest version in linux-firmware is 59. Seems you're at 62 already.
>> And last but not least: The iwlwifi firmware pollutes the linux-firmware
>> root directory. Wouldn't it be better to move all these firmware files
>> to something like intel/iwlwifi ?
>> Maybe for now you could leave symlinks in the root directory.
>>
>
> I agree with Heiner, that's something I do/did/will not like: the
> locations for firmware files.
>
> Here on Debian all firmware files are stored in "/lib/firmware"
> directory - which should be plural "firmwares" IMHO.
>
> We already have a lot of directories for vendors like "intel",
> "nvidia", "matrox", etc.
>
> If we move intel stuff around then please do it for intel-gfx stuff
> like "i915" or ucodes like "intel-ucode".
>
> I vote to move all intel stuff into a single directory called "intel"
> where we have sub-dirs:
> intel > i915
> intel > iwlwifi
> intel > ucode (renamed from "intel-ucode")
> intel > e100
> ...
>
> But before doing any move - this should be done for all vendors.
> See realtek, broadcom, amd (radeon-gfx), etc.
> Means collect all firmware stuff for bluetooth, wlan, ethernet, gfx
> etc. of a single vendor.
>
> If we do a cleanup then I vote to do this for all vendors?
>
> Dunno, who is the maintainer of linux-firmware.
> Guess we need to change code in the Linux sources to say "load
> firmware from </path/to/dirname>".
> ( Should be one-liners. )
>
> For that request we should open a new thread.
>
> My €0,99 (if I would be a good guy I have written €1,00).
>
> - Sedat -
>
+Josh for linux-firmware
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:46 PM Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12.02.2021 15:38, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:15 PM Heiner Kallweit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12.02.2021 13:21, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >>> On 11.02.2021 21:23, Luca Coelho wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2021-02-11 at 17:10 +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> >>>>> Today's linux-next has a bunch of issues, at least with my AX210 (0024) card.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First I got a GPF in iwl_request_firmware(), cfg->fw_name_pre was invalid.
> >>>>> After some digging into it I found that 6f60fb03c8e7 ("iwlwifi: move SnJ
> >>>>> and So rules to the new tables") removed the entries for some cards.
> >>>>> Obviously 5febcdef3090 and 9b15596c5006 weren't synced with some parallel
> >>>>> development.
> >>>>> After adding the entry for 0024 I now get the following lockdep warning.
> >>>>> Isn't there any regression testing with lockdep enabled?
> >>>>> Also warning "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is still
> >>>>> there, IIRC we talked about this weeks ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ 4.561774] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
> >>>>> [ 4.630849] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-ty-a0-gf-a0-61.ucode failed with error -2
> >>>>> [ 4.639817] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver
> >>>>> [ 4.640062] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: TLV_FW_FSEQ_VERSION: FSEQ Version: 93.8.73.28
> >>>>> [ 4.642138] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: loaded firmware version 60.84d9abea.0 ty-a0-gf-a0-60.ucode op_mode iwlmvm
> >>>>> [ 4.760541] iwlwifi 0000:01:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wi-Fi 6 AX210 160MHz, REV=0x420
> >>>>> [ 4.942350] irq/131-iwlwifi/2094 just changed the state of lock:
> >>>>> [ 4.942358] ffffa3fc07f080b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.942504] 1 lock held by irq/131-iwlwifi/2094:
> >>>>> [ 4.942511] #0: ffffa3fc0855c170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0x47/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943219] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x208/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943242] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943264] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943289] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943329] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943360] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943391] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943424] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943446] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943467] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943588] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943612] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943635] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943662] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943695] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943728] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943760] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943793] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943816] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943838] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.943954] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.943978] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944063] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944147] _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x140/0x6e0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944170] iwl_pcie_gen2_rx_init+0x20/0x30 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944194] iwl_trans_pcie_gen2_start_fw+0x1e3/0x350 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944220] iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0xfc/0x440 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.944255] iwl_run_unified_mvm_ucode+0xa5/0x250 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.944287] iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0x292/0x370 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.944319] iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x7f4/0xb60 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.944352] _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.0+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944375] iwl_opmode_register+0x70/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944397] iwl_mvm_init+0x35/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >>>>> [ 4.944493] ... key at: [<ffffffffc0c2e0c0>] __key.12+0x0/0xffffffffffff0f40 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944547] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944569] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944643] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944705] CPU: 0 PID: 2094 Comm: irq/131-iwlwifi Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210211+ #1
> >>>>> [ 4.944786] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944825] ? iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944847] iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944878] iwl_pcie_napi_poll_msix+0x2a/0x90 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944949] ? iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xab/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>> [ 4.944981] iwl_pcie_irq_rx_msix_handler+0xbc/0x100 [iwlwifi]
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for reporting!
> >>>>
> >>>> We made a bunch of fixes in this area and Kalle just pulled them to
> >>>> wireless-drivers-next. I believe these changes will be in tomorrow's
> >>>> linux-next. Can you retry it then?
> >>>>
> >>> I tested today's linux-next:
> >>>
> >>> The lockdep warning is still there and occurs w/o any traffic on boot.
> >>> No CI machine on your side w/ lockdep enabled?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [ 5.845931] ========================================================
> >>> [ 5.845938] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> >>> [ 5.845946] 5.11.0-rc7-next-20210212+ #1 Not tainted
> >>> [ 5.845954] --------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [ 5.845961] irq/131-iwlwifi/2132 just changed the state of lock:
> >>> [ 5.845969] ffff8ca6c88600b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7c/0x8b0 [iwlwifi]
> >>> [ 5.846011] but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> >>> [ 5.846019] (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
> >>> [ 5.846023]
> >>>
> >>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >>>
> >>> [ 5.846039]
> >>> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>> [ 5.846047] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> >>>
> >>> [ 5.846055] CPU0 CPU1
> >>> [ 5.846061] ---- ----
> >>> [ 5.846066] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> >>> [ 5.846074] local_irq_disable();
> >>> [ 5.846081] lock(&rxq->lock);
> >>> [ 5.846090] lock(napi_hash_lock);
> >>> [ 5.846099] <Interrupt>
> >>> [ 5.846103] lock(&rxq->lock);
> >>> [ 5.846110]
> >>> *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>>
> >>> "api flags index 2 larger than supported by driver" is also still there
> >>>
> >>> 0024 AX210 version is now detected. When I disable the entry I don't get a GPF
> >>> any longer but a WARN() is triggered. Not sure why a WARN() was chosen because
> >>> the call trace provides no benefit here. More helpful would be a simple
> >>> error message stating: "dev id foo: unknown dev sub id bar. Contact maintainers."
> >>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Luca.
> >>>>
> >>> Heiner
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> One more comment, as I just wanted to upgrade my AX210 firmware version:
> >>
> >> Latest version in linux-firmware is 59. Seems you're at 62 already.
> >> And last but not least: The iwlwifi firmware pollutes the linux-firmware
> >> root directory. Wouldn't it be better to move all these firmware files
> >> to something like intel/iwlwifi ?
> >> Maybe for now you could leave symlinks in the root directory.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with Heiner, that's something I do/did/will not like: the
> > locations for firmware files.
> >
> > Here on Debian all firmware files are stored in "/lib/firmware"
> > directory - which should be plural "firmwares" IMHO.
> >
> > We already have a lot of directories for vendors like "intel",
> > "nvidia", "matrox", etc.
> >
> > If we move intel stuff around then please do it for intel-gfx stuff
> > like "i915" or ucodes like "intel-ucode".
> >
> > I vote to move all intel stuff into a single directory called "intel"
> > where we have sub-dirs:
> > intel > i915
> > intel > iwlwifi
> > intel > ucode (renamed from "intel-ucode")
> > intel > e100
> > ...
> >
> > But before doing any move - this should be done for all vendors.
> > See realtek, broadcom, amd (radeon-gfx), etc.
> > Means collect all firmware stuff for bluetooth, wlan, ethernet, gfx
> > etc. of a single vendor.
> >
> > If we do a cleanup then I vote to do this for all vendors?
> >
> > Dunno, who is the maintainer of linux-firmware.
> > Guess we need to change code in the Linux sources to say "load
> > firmware from </path/to/dirname>".
> > ( Should be one-liners. )
> >
> > For that request we should open a new thread.
> >
> > My €0,99 (if I would be a good guy I have written €1,00).
> >
> > - Sedat -
> >
>
> +Josh for linux-firmware
Thanks.
Some more ideas but cannot say this is more overhead than helpful:
<vendor_name>/<hw_cat_short>/<driver_name>
With hw_cat_short I mean:
"bth" short for bluetooth
"eth" short for ethernet
"wifi" for wireless-lan
"gfx" for graphics
etc.
If vendors have multiple wifi device "families" thinking of realtek for example.
Some brainstorming...
Hey, I found one cent :-)...
- Sedat -