[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d9b1c8ea-99e2-7c3e-ec8e-61362e8ccfa7@v0yd.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 20:04:00 +0200
From: Jonas Dreßler <verdre@...d.nl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mwifiex: Try waking the firmware until we get an
interrupt
On 9/22/21 1:19 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:48:13PM +0200, Jonas Dreßler wrote:
>> It seems that the firmware of the 88W8897 card sometimes ignores or
>> misses when we try to wake it up by writing to the firmware status
>> register. This leads to the firmware wakeup timeout expiring and the
>> driver resetting the card because we assume the firmware has hung up or
>> crashed (unfortunately that's not unlikely with this card).
>>
>> Turns out that most of the time the firmware actually didn't hang up,
>> but simply "missed" our wakeup request and didn't send us an AWAKE
>> event.
>>
>> Trying again to read the firmware status register after a short timeout
>> usually makes the firmware wake up as expected, so add a small retry
>> loop to mwifiex_pm_wakeup_card() that looks at the interrupt status to
>> check whether the card woke up.
>>
>> The number of tries and timeout lengths for this were determined
>> experimentally: The firmware usually takes about 500 us to wake up
>> after we attempt to read the status register. In some cases where the
>> firmware is very busy (for example while doing a bluetooth scan) it
>> might even miss our requests for multiple milliseconds, which is why
>> after 15 tries the waiting time gets increased to 10 ms. The maximum
>> number of tries it took to wake the firmware when testing this was
>> around 20, so a maximum number of 50 tries should give us plenty of
>> safety margin.
>>
>> A good reproducer for this issue is letting the firmware sleep and wake
>> up in very short intervals, for example by pinging a device on the
>> network every 0.1 seconds.
>
> ...
>
>> + do {
>> + if (mwifiex_write_reg(adapter, reg->fw_status, FIRMWARE_READY_PCIE)) {
>> + mwifiex_dbg(adapter, ERROR,
>> + "Writing fw_status register failed\n");
>> + return -EIO;
>> + }
>> +
>> + n_tries++;
>> +
>> + if (n_tries <= N_WAKEUP_TRIES_SHORT_INTERVAL)
>> + usleep_range(400, 700);
>> + else
>> + msleep(10);
>> + } while (n_tries <= N_WAKEUP_TRIES_SHORT_INTERVAL + N_WAKEUP_TRIES_LONG_INTERVAL &&
>> + READ_ONCE(adapter->int_status) == 0);
>
> Can't you use read_poll_timeout() twice instead of this custom approach?
>
I've tried this now, but read_poll_timeout() is not ideal for our
use-case. What we'd need would be read->sleep->poll->repeat instead of
read->poll->sleep->repeat. With read_poll_timeout() we always end up
doing one more (unnecessary) write.
>> + mwifiex_dbg(adapter, EVENT,
>> + "event: Tried %d times until firmware woke up\n", n_tries);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists