[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DU2PR04MB860074DF11676414E57A5904E713A@DU2PR04MB8600.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:02:32 +0000
From: Neeraj sanjay kale <neeraj.sanjaykale@....com>
To: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
CC: "marcel@...tmann.org" <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"johan.hedberg@...il.com" <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"luiz.dentz@...il.com" <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkumar.karwar@....com>,
Rohit Fule <rohit.fule@....com>,
Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@....com>,
"linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: btnxpuart: Add support for IW624 chipset
Hi Francesco
Thank you for reviewing this patch.
> > --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btnxpuart.c
> ...
> > @@ -547,7 +553,7 @@ static int nxp_download_firmware(struct hci_dev
> *hdev)
> > serdev_device_set_flow_control(nxpdev->serdev, false);
> > nxpdev->current_baudrate = HCI_NXP_PRI_BAUDRATE;
> >
> > - /* Wait till FW is downloaded and CTS becomes low */
> > + /* Wait till FW is downloaded */
> > err = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(nxpdev->fw_dnld_done_wait_q,
> > !test_bit(BTNXPUART_FW_DOWNLOADING,
> >
> > &nxpdev->tx_state), @@ -558,16 +564,11 @@ static int
> nxp_download_firmware(struct hci_dev *hdev)
> > }
> >
> > serdev_device_set_flow_control(nxpdev->serdev, true);
> > - err = serdev_device_wait_for_cts(nxpdev->serdev, 1, 60000);
> > - if (err < 0) {
> > - bt_dev_err(hdev, "CTS is still high. FW Download failed.");
> > - return err;
> > - }
> this seems like an unrelated change, and it's moving from a 60secs timeout
> polling CTS to nothing.
>
> What's the reason for this? Should be this a separate commit with a proper
> explanation?
>
While working on integrating IW624 in btnxpuart driver, I observed that the first reset command was getting timed out, after FW download was complete 2 out of 10 times. On further timing analysis, I noticed that this wait for CTS code did not actually help much, since CTS is already low after FW download, and becomes high after few more milli-seconds, and then low again after FW is initialized.
So it was either adding a "wait for CTS high" followed by "wait for CTS low", or simply increasing the sleep delay from 1000msec to 1200msec.
I chose the later as it seemed more cleaner, and did the job perfectly, and tested all previously supported chipsets to make sure nothing is broke.
But you are right, I should add an explanation for this change in the commit message in the v2 patch.
Thanks,
Neeraj
Powered by blists - more mailing lists