[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200827194225.281eb7dc@coco.lan>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 19:42:25 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, linuxarm@...wei.com,
mauro.chehab@...wei.com, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Maital Hahn <maitalm@...com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Raz Bouganim <r-bouganim@...com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Fuqian Huang <huangfq.daxian@...il.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "wlcore: Adding suppoprt for IGTK key in wlcore
driver"
Em Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:48:30 -0700
Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com> escreveu:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:49 PM Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > This patch causes a regression betwen Kernel 5.7 and 5.8 at wlcore:
> > with it applied, WiFi stops working, and the Kernel starts printing
> > this message every second:
> >
> > wlcore: PHY firmware version: Rev 8.2.0.0.242
> > wlcore: firmware booted (Rev 8.9.0.0.79)
> > wlcore: ERROR command execute failure 14
>
> Only if NO firmware for the device in question supports the `KEY_IGTK`
> value, then this revert is appropriate. Otherwise, it likely isn't.
Yeah, that's what I suspect too: some specific firmware is required
for KEY_IGTK to work.
> My suspicion is that the feature that `KEY_IGTK` is enabling is
> specific to a newer firmware that Mauro hasn't upgraded to. What the
> OP should do is find the updated firmware and give it a try.
I didn't try checking if linux-firmware tree has a newer version on
it. I'm using Debian Bullseye on this device. So, I suspect that
it may have a relatively new firmware.
Btw, that's also the version that came together with Fedora 32:
$ strings /lib/firmware/ti-connectivity/wl18xx-fw-4.bin |grep FRev
FRev 8.9.0.0.79
FRev 8.2.0.0.242
Looking at:
https://git.ti.com/cgit/wilink8-wlan/wl18xx_fw/
It sounds that there's a newer version released this year:
2020-05-28 Updated to FW 8.9.0.0.81
2018-07-29 Updated to FW 8.9.0.0.79
However, it doesn't reached linux-firmware upstream yet:
$ git log --pretty=oneline ti-connectivity/wl18xx-fw-4.bin
3a5103fc3c29 wl18xx: update firmware file 8.9.0.0.79
65b1c68c63f9 wl18xx: update firmware file 8.9.0.0.76
dbb85a5154a5 wl18xx: update firmware file
69a250dd556b wl18xx: update firmware file
dbe3f134bb69 wl18xx: update firmware file, remove conf file
dab4b79b3fbc wl18xx: add version 4 of the wl18xx firmware
> AND - since there's some firmware the feature doesn't work with, the
> driver should be fixed to detect the running firmware version and not
> do things that the firmware doesn't support. AND the firmware writer
> should also make it so the firmware doesn't barf on bad input and
> instead rejects it politely.
Agreed. The main issue here seems to be that the current patch
assumes that this feature is available. A proper approach would
be to check if this feature is available before trying to use it.
Now, I dunno if version 8.9.0.0.81 has what's required for it to
work - or if KEY_IGTK require some custom firmware version.
If it works with such version, one way would be to add a check
for this specific version, disabling KEY_IGTK otherwise.
Also, someone from TI should be sending the newer version to
be added at linux-firmware.
I'll try to do a test maybe tomorrow.
> But I will say I'm making an educated guess; while I have played with
> the TI devices in the past, it was years ago and I won't claim to be
> an expert. I also am unable to fix it myself at this time.
>
> I'd just rather see it fixed properly instead of a knee-jerk reaction
> of reverting it simply because the OP doesn't have current firmware.
> And let's revisit the discussion of having a kernel splat because an
> unrelated piece of code fails yet the driver does exactly what it is
> supposed to do. We shouldn't be dumping registers and stack-trace when
> the code that crashed has nothing to do with the registers and
> stack-trace outputted. It is a false positive. A simple printk WARN
> or ERROR should output notifying us that the chip firmware has crashed
> and why. IMHO.
Thanks,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists