lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: hci_qca: wcn3990: Drop baudrate change vendor event
Hi Matthias,

Sorry for the late reply i was on vacation.

On 2019-03-08 05:00, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:20:09AM -0800, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> Hi Balakrishna,
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:35:08AM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi
>> wrote:
>> > hi Matthias,
>> >
>> > On 2019-03-07 06:10, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>> > > Firmware download to the WCN3990 often fails with a 'TLV response size
>> > > mismatch' error:
>> > >
>> > > [ 133.064659] Bluetooth: hci0: setting up wcn3990
>> > > [ 133.489150] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA controller version 0x02140201
>> > > [ 133.495245] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA Downloading qca/crbtfw21.tlv
>> > > [ 133.507214] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA TLV response size mismatch
>> > > [ 133.513265] Bluetooth: hci0: QCA Failed to download patch (-84)
>> > >
>> > > This is caused by a vendor event that corresponds to an earlier command
>> > > to change the baudrate. The event is not processed in the context of the
>> > > baudrate change and later interpreted as response to the firmware
>> > > download command (which is also a vendor command), but the driver
>> > > detects
>> > > that the event doesn't have the expected amount of associated data.
>> > >
>> > > More details:
>> > >
>> > > For the WCN3990 the vendor command for a baudrate change isn't sent as
>> > > synchronous HCI command, because the controller sends the corresponding
>> > > vendor event with the new baudrate. The event is received and decoded
>> > > after the baudrate change of the host port.
>> > >
>> > > Identify the 'unused' event when it is received and don't add it to
>> > > the queue of RX frames.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
>> > > ---
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Can you test by reverting this change "94d6671473924".
>>
>> The issue is still reproducible.
>>
>> > We need at least 15ms minimum delay for the soc to change its baud rate and
>> > respond to the with command complete event.
>>
>> The baudrate change has clearly been successful when the problem is
>> observed, since the host receives the vendor event with the new
>> baudrate.
>
> I forgot to mention this earlier: the controller doesn't send a
> command complete event for the command, or at least not a correct
> one.
>
> That's the data that is received:
>
> 04 0e 04 01 00 00 00
> ~~ ~~
>
[Bala]: can you share me the command sent and event recevied.
I see that we receive a command complete event for the baud rate change
command.

command sent: 01 48 fc 01 11
vendor specific event: 04 ff 02 92 01
command complete event: 04 0e 04 01 00 00 00.



> This is *a* command complete event, but the opcode is 0x0000 instead
> of the earlier command. The same happens for the firmware
> download/read version command, which is the reason why the command
> complete injection mess
> (https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1027955/) is needed in one
> way or another.
>
[Bala]: fw download approach is different where we use __hci_cmd_sync()
where as here we use hci_uart_tx_wakeup()
which directly calls the hci_uart_write_work(). so even we send
an valid opcode or not for baudrate change will bot matter.

> I wished Qualcomm FW developers would get their act together and:
>
> - send actual command complete events :
> - acknowledge a baudrate change request using the current baudrate
> like Broadcom and Intel chips apparently do
>
> this would have saved countless hours of debugging and implementing
> quirky workarounds ...
>
> Maybe there is hope for future chips (hint, hint)?

[Bala]: will take this forward to the SoC teams.

--
Regards
Balakrishna.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-01 10:00    [W:0.053 / U:34.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site