Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:04:45 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
Cc:     kvalo@codeaurora.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: Handle "invalid" BDFs for msm8998 devices
Message-ID: <20191112090444.ak2xu67eawfgpdgb@netronome.com>
References: <20191106234712.2380-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191106234712.2380-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:47:12PM -0800, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> When the BDF download QMI message has the end field set to 1, it signals
> the end of the transfer, and triggers the firmware to do a CRC check.  The
> BDFs for msm8998 devices fail this check, yet the firmware is happy to
> still use the BDF.  It appears that this error is not caught by the
> downstream drive by concidence, therefore there are production devices
> in the field where this issue needs to be handled otherwise we cannot
> support wifi on them.  So, attempt to detect this scenario as best we can
> and treat it as non-fatal.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> index eb618a2652db..5ff8cfc93778 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/qmi.c
> @@ -265,10 +265,13 @@ static int ath10k_qmi_bdf_dnld_send_sync(struct ath10k_qmi *qmi)
>  			goto out;
>  
>  		if (resp.resp.result != QMI_RESULT_SUCCESS_V01) {
> -			ath10k_err(ar, "failed to download board data file: %d\n",
> -				   resp.resp.error);
> -			ret = -EINVAL;
> -			goto out;
> +			if (!(req->end == 1 &&
> +			      resp.resp.result == QMI_ERR_MALFORMED_MSG_V01)) {

Would it make sense to combine the inner and outer condition,
something like this (completely untested) ?

		if (resp.resp.result != QMI_RESULT_SUCCESS_V01 &&
		    !(req->end == 1 &&
		      resp.resp.result == QMI_ERR_MALFORMED_MSG_V01)) {

> +				ath10k_err(ar, "failed to download board data file: %d\n",
> +					   resp.resp.error);
> +				ret = -EINVAL;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
>  		}
>  
>  		remaining -= req->data_len;
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>