Message-ID: <1200f5c32e029c603667d66a4c62a634@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 03 Apr 2019 11:53:26 +0530
From:   Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@...eaurora.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>, c-hbandi@...eaurora.org
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hemantg <hemantg@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: hci_qca: wcn3990: Drop baudrate change
 vendor event

+ Harish to update his findings on wcn3998.
Mean time i will perform a regression to detect the failure.

On 2019-04-02 23:35, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:32:54PM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>> 
>> On 2019-04-01 22:42, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:48:23PM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote:
>> > > Hi Matthias,
>> > >
>> > > On 2019-04-01 13:29, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote:
>> > > > Hi Matthias,
>> > > >
>> > > > Sorry for the late reply i was on vacation.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 2019-03-08 05:00, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:20:09AM -0800, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > > > > Hi Balakrishna,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:35:08AM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > hi Matthias,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 2019-03-07 06:10, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Firmware download to the WCN3990 often fails with a 'TLV response size
>> > > > > > > > mismatch' error:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > [  133.064659] Bluetooth: hci0: setting up wcn3990
>> > > > > > > > [  133.489150] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA controller version 0x02140201
>> > > > > > > > [  133.495245] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA Downloading qca/crbtfw21.tlv
>> > > > > > > > [  133.507214] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA TLV response size mismatch
>> > > > > > > > [  133.513265] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA Failed to download patch (-84)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > This is caused by a vendor event that corresponds to an earlier command
>> > > > > > > > to change the baudrate. The event is not processed in the context of the
>> > > > > > > > baudrate change and later interpreted as response to the firmware
>> > > > > > > > download command (which is also a vendor command), but the driver
>> > > > > > > > detects
>> > > > > > > > that the event doesn't have the expected amount of associated data.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > More details:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > For the WCN3990 the vendor command for a baudrate change isn't sent as
>> > > > > > > > synchronous HCI command, because the controller sends the corresponding
>> > > > > > > > vendor event with the new baudrate. The event is received and decoded
>> > > > > > > > after the baudrate change of the host port.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Identify the 'unused' event when it is received and don't add it to
>> > > > > > > > the queue of RX frames.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
>> > > > > > > > ---
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Can you test by reverting this change "94d6671473924".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The issue is still reproducible.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We need at least 15ms minimum delay for the soc to change its baud rate and
>> > > > > > > respond to the with command complete event.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The baudrate change has clearly been successful when the problem is
>> > > > > > observed, since the host receives the vendor event with the new
>> > > > > > baudrate.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I forgot to mention this earlier: the controller doesn't send a
>> > > > > command complete event for the command, or at least not a correct
>> > > > > one.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's the data that is received:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 04 0e 04 01 00 00 00
>> > > > >             ~~ ~~
>> > > > >
>> > > > [Bala]: can you share me the command sent and event recevied.
>> > > >  I see that we receive a command complete event for the baud rate
>> > > > change command.
>> > > >
>> > > > command sent: 01 48 fc 01 11
>> > > > vendor specific event: 04 ff 02 92 01
>> > > > command complete event: 04 0e 04 01 00 00 00.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > This is *a* command complete event, but the opcode is 0x0000 instead
>> > > > > of the earlier command. The same happens for the firmware
>> > > > > download/read version command, which is the reason why the command
>> > > > > complete injection mess
>> > > > > (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1027955/) is needed in one
>> > > > > way or another.
>> > > > >
>> > > > [Bala]: fw download approach is different where we use
>> > > > __hci_cmd_sync() where as here we use hci_uart_tx_wakeup()
>> > > >         which directly calls the hci_uart_write_work(). so even we
>> > > > send an valid opcode or not for baudrate change will bot matter.
>> > > >
>> > > [Bala]: i miss understood the comment. Yes your true. in the all
>> > > vendor
>> > > commands SoC responds with an 0x0000 opcode.
>> >
>> > And IIUC this is not compliant with the spec, or at least the BT core
>> > expects the actual opcode to consider the command to be completed.
>> 
>> [Bala]: Did you try increasing the the baud rate change timeout to 
>> 50ms
>> instead of 10ms.
> 
> It is even reproducible with the ROME timeout of 300ms.
> 
> The timeout doesn't help here. With 78e8fa2972e5 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca:
> Deassert RTS while baudrate change command") RTS is deasserted during
> the baudrate change, hence the controller only sends the response when
> RTS is asserted again. Before the event resulted in a frame reassembly
> error and the data was discarded.
> 
>>         i suspect it is an timing issue.
> 
> Timing is certainly also a factor here (the problem isn't seen
> always), but I don't think 'timing issue' is a proper description of
> this issue. The problem is an event that the Bluetooth core doesn't
> expect due to the hack of sending a raw command behind the core's back
> to work around the firmware 'feature' of sending the command response
> with the new baudrate.
> 
> Maybe a delay after re-asserting RTS can address is reliably, I don't
> remember if I already experimented with that in the past. If a delay
> can 'fix' the issue reliably I'm open to consider it for the sake of
> simplicity, but only with a detailed comment that describes the
> problem.

-- 
Regards
Balakrishna.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists