Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cfef10f1-9b1d-091e-da66-a724e3fbe204@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:32:11 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] wifi: ath11k: Implement sram dump interface
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
CC:     <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220802075533.1744-1-quic_bqiang@quicinc.com>
 <20220802075533.1744-3-quic_bqiang@quicinc.com> <87fsh0962e.fsf@kernel.org>
 <0e64e270-77c3-5c1a-08bc-577a82c8abac@quicinc.com>
 <87pmfz7nll.fsf@kernel.org>
From:   Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <87pmfz7nll.fsf@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 9/13/2022 3:14 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@quicinc.com> writes:
>
>>>> +	u32 i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* for offset beyond BAR + 4K - 32, may
>>>> +	 * need to wakeup the device to access.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	wakeup_required = test_bit(ATH11K_FLAG_DEVICE_INIT_DONE, &ab->dev_flags) &&
>>>> +			  end >= ATH11K_PCI_ACCESS_ALWAYS_OFF;
>>>> +	if (wakeup_required && ab->pci.ops->wakeup) {
>>>> +		ret = ab->pci.ops->wakeup(ab);
>>>> +		if (ret)
>>>> +			ath11k_warn(ab, "%s: failed to do wakeup: %d\n", __func__, ret);
>>>> +	}
>>> I changed the error handling so that if wakeup() fails we do not
>>> continue and just return an error.
>> I prefer to keep the original design, because in that case we still
>> have something to check after firmware crashes.
>>
>> I admit that the dump content may be invalid if wakeup fails, but we
>> can know that by checking kernel log, so we can avoid misleading.
> Too late now, I already applied the patch. You need to submit a new
> patch to change the logic. And if we really want to ignore the wakeup
> failure there should be a proper comment in the code explaining the idea,
> and maybe improve the warning message to make it more understandable for
> the user.
Sure Kalle, I will send a new patch for that.