Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f47.google.com ([209.85.192.47]:36631 "EHLO mail-qg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752041AbbKVUNz (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:13:55 -0500 Received: by qgcc31 with SMTP id c31so61018012qgc.3 for ; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 12:13:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <564433A2.1080407@linaro.org> References: <1447063362-27322-1-git-send-email-fengwei.yin@linaro.org> <1447063362-27322-5-git-send-email-fengwei.yin@linaro.org> <20151109154040.GD5395@localhost> <564433A2.1080407@linaro.org> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 20:13:54 +0000 Message-ID: (sfid-20151122_211358_744286_8CE6A048) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] wcn3620: use new response format for wcn3620 trigger_ba From: Eugene Krasnikov To: "fengwei.yin" Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Bob Copeland , wcn36xx , Andy Green , linux-wireless , Bjorn Andersson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Yin, Yes, it seems like response is FW specific other than chip spesific. 2015-11-12 6:37 GMT+00:00 fengwei.yin : > Hi Bjorn, > > On 2015/11/12 12:50, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Bob Copeland wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 05:02:41AM -0500, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Andy Green >>>> >>>> From: Andy Green >>>> >>>> On wcn3620, firmware response to trigger_ba uses the new, larger >>>> "v2" format >>> >>> >>>> - ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check(wcn->hal_buf, >>>> wcn->hal_rsp_len); >>>> + ret = wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2(wcn, wcn->hal_buf, >>>> + wcn->hal_rsp_len); >>> >>> >>> It's unclear from the changelog -- is it safe to call >>> wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check_v2 on the 3660/3680 as well? >>> >>> Is wcn36xx_smd_rsp_status_check() still needed? >>> >> >> I had to introduce this on one of my 3680 devices recently to silence >> the error described originally by Andy. So it not only seems safe but >> seems required. But still, based on how the code was written this >> doesn't seem to be the case on all versions of the firmware or all >> chips(?) >> > Thanks for the information. It confirm my thought that the change sticks > to new firmware instead of specific platform. > > But we couldn't tell which version of firmware need this new format. Andy's > original change has two conditions to use the new format: > 1. The platform is 3620. - this should be removed because you need the same > change for 3680. And patch v2 already remove it. > > 2. The packet size from firmware is larger than old response size. I suppose > this one works in most case. > > Regards > Yin, Fengwei > >> Regards, >> Bjorn >> > -- Best regards, Eugene