[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Ve3Rp7AziB8k8ESM41xEV8uNWD21Wh_MPcRqfDcJ0QR-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 11:07:11 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jonas Dreßler <verdre@...d.nl>
Cc: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@...il.com>,
"open list:TI WILINK WIRELES..." <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Add quirk to disable deep sleep with certain
hardware revision
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:38 AM Jonas Dreßler <verdre@...d.nl> wrote:
>
> The 88W8897 PCIe+USB card in the hardware revision 20 apparently has a
> hardware issue where the card wakes up from deep sleep randomly and very
> often, somewhat depending on the card activity, maybe the hardware has a
> floating wakeup pin or something.
>
> Those continuous wakeups prevent the card from entering host sleep when
> the computer suspends. And because the host won't answer to events from
> the card anymore while it's suspended, the firmwares internal
> powersaving state machine seems to get confused and the card can't sleep
power saving
> anymore at all after that.
>
> Since we can't work around that hardware bug in the firmware, let's
> get the hardware revision string from the firmware and match it with
> known bad revisions. Then disable auto deep sleep for those revisions,
> which makes sure we no longer get those spurious wakeups.
...
> +static void maybe_quirk_fw_disable_ds(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
> +{
> + struct mwifiex_private *priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_STA);
> + struct mwifiex_ver_ext ver_ext;
> + set_bit(MWIFIEX_IS_REQUESTING_FW_VEREXT, &adapter->work_flags);
This does not bring atomicity to this function.
You need test_and_set_bit().
Otherwise the bit may very well be cleared already here. And function
may enter here again.
If this state machine is protected by lock or so, then why not use
__set_bit() to show this clearly?
> + memset(&ver_ext, 0, sizeof(ver_ext));
> + ver_ext.version_str_sel = 1;
> + mwifiex_send_cmd(priv, HostCmd_CMD_VERSION_EXT,
> + HostCmd_ACT_GEN_GET, 0, &ver_ext, false);
> +}
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists