lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 4/4] Bluetooth: btqca: inject command complete event during fw download
From
Date
Hi Balakrishna,

>>> Latest qualcomm chips are not sending an command complete event for
>>> every firmware packet sent to chip. They only respond with a vendor
>>> specific event for the last firmware packet. This optimization will
>>> decrease the BT ON time. Due to this we are seeing a timeout error
>>> message logs on the console during firmware download. Now we are
>>> injecting a command complete event once we receive an vendor specific
>>> event for the last RAM firmware packet.
>>> Signed-off-by: Balakrishna Godavarthi <bgodavar@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> drivers/bluetooth/btqca.h | 3 +++
>>> 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
>>> index ec9e03a6b778..0b533f65f652 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/bluetooth/btqca.c
>>> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ static void qca_tlv_check_data(struct rome_config *config,
>>> * In case VSE is skipped, only the last segment is acked.
>>> */
>>> config->dnld_mode = tlv_patch->download_mode;
>>> + config->dnld_type = config->dnld_mode;
>>> BT_DBG("Total Length : %d bytes",
>>> le32_to_cpu(tlv_patch->total_size));
>>> @@ -264,6 +265,31 @@ static int qca_tlv_send_segment(struct hci_dev *hdev, int seg_size,
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>> +static int qca_inject_cmd_complete_event(struct hci_dev *hdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct hci_event_hdr *hdr;
>>> + struct hci_ev_cmd_complete *evt;
>>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
>>> +
>>> + skb = bt_skb_alloc(sizeof(*hdr) + sizeof(*evt) + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!skb)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + hdr = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*hdr));
>>> + hdr->evt = HCI_EV_CMD_COMPLETE;
>>> + hdr->plen = sizeof(*evt) + 1;
>>> +
>>> + evt = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*evt));
>>> + evt->ncmd = 1;
>>> + evt->opcode = HCI_OP_NOP;
>>> +
>>> + skb_put_u8(skb, QCA_HCI_CC_SUCCESS);
>>> +
>>> + hci_skb_pkt_type(skb) = HCI_EVENT_PKT;
>>> +
>>> + return hci_recv_frame(hdev, skb);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int qca_download_firmware(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>> struct rome_config *config)
>>> {
>>> @@ -297,11 +323,22 @@ static int qca_download_firmware(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>> ret = qca_tlv_send_segment(hdev, segsize, segment,
>>> config->dnld_mode);
>>> if (ret)
>>> - break;
>>> + goto out;
>>> segment += segsize;
>>> }
>>> + /* Latest qualcomm chipsets are not sending a command complete event
>>> + * for every fw packet sent. They only respond with a vendor specific
>>> + * event for the last packet. This optimization in the chip will
>>> + * decrease the BT in initialization time. Here we will inject a command
>>> + * complete event to avoid a command timeout error message.
>>> + */
>>> + if ((config->dnld_type == ROME_SKIP_EVT_VSE_CC ||
>>> + config->dnld_type == ROME_SKIP_EVT_VSE))
>>> + return qca_inject_cmd_complete_event(hdev);
>>> +
>> have you actually considered using __hci_cmd_send in that case. It is
>> allowed for vendor OGF to use that command. I see you actually do use
>> it and now I am failing to understand what this is for.
> [Bala]: thanks for reviewing the change.
>
> __hci_cmd_send() can be used only to send the command to the chip. it will not wait for the response for the command sent.
>
> as you know that every vendor command sent to chip will respond with vendor specific event and command complete event.
> but in our case chip will only respond with vendor specific event only. so we are injecting command complete event.

and __hci_cmd_sync_ev is also not working for you? However since you are not waiting for the vendor event anyway and just injecting cmd_complete, I wonder what’s the difference in just using __hci_cmd_send and not bothering to wait or inject at all. I am failing to see where this injection makes a difference.

For me it is a big difference if we are injecting one event like in the case of Intel compared to injecting one for every command. It will show a wrong picture in btmon and that is a bad idea.

Regards

Marcel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-30 09:11    [W:0.080 / U:1.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site