Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:33898 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751205AbcEYVtn convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 17:49:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57461435.9080708@broadcom.com> References: <1464080979-12150-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <57461435.9080708@broadcom.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:49:42 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20160525_235012_685785_B6C9105D) Subject: Re: [PATCH] brcmfmac: fix setting AP channel with new firmwares From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: Arend van Spriel Cc: Kalle Valo , Brett Rudley , Arend van Spriel , "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" , Hante Meuleman , Pieter-Paul Giesberts , "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" , "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" , "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 25 May 2016 at 23:08, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 24-05-16 11:09, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >> Firmware for new chipsets is based on a new major version of code >> internally maintained at Broadcom. E.g. brcmfmac4366b-pcie.bin (used for >> BCM4366B1) is based on 10.10.69.3309 while brcmfmac43602-pcie.ap.bin was >> based on 7.35.177.56. >> >> Currently setting AP 5 GHz channel doesn't work reliably with BCM4366B1. >> When setting e.g. 36 control channel with VHT80 (center channel 42) >> firmware may randomly pick one of: >> 1) 52 control channel with 58 as center one >> 2) 100 control channel with 106 as center one >> 3) 116 control channel with 122 as center one >> 4) 149 control channel with 155 as center one >> >> It seems new firmwares require setting AP mode (BRCMF_C_SET_AP) before >> specifying a channel. Changing an order of firmware calls fixes the >> problem. >> >> This fix was verified with BCM4366B1 and tested for regressions on >> BCM43602. It's unclear if it's needed (or correct at all) for P2P >> interfaces so it leaves this code unaffected. > > In doing so the code reads a bit awkward so if P2P-GO works with the > changed order that would be preferable. I'd prefer to have one code path as well, but my device/firmware doesn't support P2P so I couldn't test it. Could you test it or check firmware code to see if it's safe to change P2P path as well? -- Rafał