Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Apr 2019 17:32:54 +0530 | From | Balakrishna Godavarthi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: hci_qca: wcn3990: Drop baudrate change vendor event |
| |
Hi Matthias,
On 2019-04-01 22:42, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:48:23PM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote: >> Hi Matthias, >> >> On 2019-04-01 13:29, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> [Bala]: i miss understood the comment. Yes your true. in the all >> vendor >> commands SoC responds with an 0x0000 opcode. > > And IIUC this is not compliant with the spec, or at least the BT core > expects the actual opcode to consider the command to be completed.
[Bala]: Did you try increasing the the baud rate change timeout to 50ms instead of 10ms. i suspect it is an timing issue. I have see on the hardware sniffer that the chip is responding with command complete event with the newer baud rate after 15ms. -- Regards Balakrishna.
| |