Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:42:02 +0200
From:   Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= <pali@kernel.org>
To:     Jonas =?utf-8?Q?Dre=C3=9Fler?= <verdre@v0yd.nl>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@gmail.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: Use non-posted PCI register writes
Message-ID: <20210930154202.cvw3it3edv7pmqtb@pali>
References: <CAHp75VdR4VC+Ojy9NjAtewAaPAgowq-3rffrr3uAdOeiN8gN-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+ASDXNGR2=sQ+w1LkMiY_UCfaYgQ5tcu2pbBn46R2asv83sSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YS/rn8b0O3FPBbtm@google.com>
 <0ce93e7c-b041-d322-90cd-40ff5e0e8ef0@v0yd.nl>
 <CA+ASDXNMhrxX-nFrr6kBo0a0c-25+Ge2gBP2uTjE8UWJMeQO2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd64c142-93d0-c348-834c-34ed80c460f9@v0yd.nl>
 <e4cbf804-c374-79a3-53ac-8a0fbd8f75b8@v0yd.nl>
 <CAHp75Vd5iCLELx8s+Zvcj8ufd2bN6CK26soDMkZyC1CwMO2Qeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210923202231.t2zjoejpxrbbe5hc@pali>
 <db583b3c-6bfc-d765-a588-eb47c76cea31@v0yd.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <db583b3c-6bfc-d765-a588-eb47c76cea31@v0yd.nl>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 30 September 2021 17:38:43 Jonas Dreßler wrote:
> On 9/23/21 10:22 PM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 September 2021 22:41:30 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 6:28 PM Jonas Dreßler <verdre@v0yd.nl> wrote:
> > > > On 9/22/21 2:50 PM, Jonas Dreßler wrote:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > - Just calling mwifiex_write_reg() once and then blocking until the card
> > > > wakes up using my delay-loop doesn't fix the issue, it's actually
> > > > writing multiple times that fixes the issue
> > > > 
> > > > These observations sound a lot like writes (and even reads) are actually
> > > > being dropped, don't they?
> > > 
> > > It sounds like you're writing into a not ready (fully powered on) device.
> > 
> > This reminds me a discussion with Bjorn about CRS response returned
> > after firmware crash / reset when device is not ready yet:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20210922164803.GA203171@bhelgaas/
> > 
> > Could not be this similar issue? You could check it via reading
> > PCI_VENDOR_ID register from config space. And if it is not valid value
> > then card is not really ready yet.
> > 
> > > To check this, try to put a busy loop for reading and check the value
> > > till it gets 0.
> > > 
> > > Something like
> > > 
> > >    unsigned int count = 1000;
> > > 
> > >    do {
> > >      if (mwifiex_read_reg(...) == 0)
> > >        break;
> > >    } while (--count);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > With Best Regards,
> > > Andy Shevchenko
> 
> I've tried both reading PCI_VENDOR_ID and the firmware status using a busy
> loop now, but sadly none of them worked. It looks like the card always
> replies with the correct values even though it sometimes won't wake up after
> that.
> 
> I do have one new observation though, although I've no clue what could be
> happening here: When reading PCI_VENDOR_ID 1000 times to wakeup we can
> "predict" the wakeup failure because exactly one (usually around the 20th)
> of those 1000 reads will fail.

What does "fail" means here?

> Maybe the firmware actually tries to wake up,
> encounters an error somewhere in its wakeup routines and then goes down a
> special failure code path. That code path keeps the cards CPU so busy that
> at some point a PCI_VENDOR_ID request times out?
> 
> Or well, maybe the card actually wakes up fine, but we don't receive the
> interrupt on our end, so many possibilities...