Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:22:15 +0530 | From | Balakrishna Godavarthi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Bluetooth: hci_qca: wcn3990: Drop baudrate change vendor event |
| |
Hi Matthias,
On 2019-04-03 21:44, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:53:26AM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote: >> + Harish to update his findings on wcn3998. >> Mean time i will perform a regression to detect the failure. > > On my system it typically reproduces within a few dozen > iterations. Make sure your tree doesn't contain any custom BT patches, > even if they just add logging or fix the timeout during > initialization. Since this problem is timing sensitive it might get > masked. My tree is based on 4.19 LTS with all QCA BT related changes > on top: > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/refs/heads/chromeos-4.19 > > I found some problems during initialization easier to reproduce > when binding and unbinding the device through sysfs, instead of > doing hciconfig up/down, this resembles more the initialization at > boot time. > [Bala]: I am able to replicate this issue. are you seeing the below error message getting logged on the console in the issue case or an different error message. Bluetooth: hci0: QCA TLV response size mismatch
>> On 2019-04-02 23:35, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:32:54PM +0530, Balakrishna Godavarthi wrote: >> > > 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. >> > >> > It is even reproducible with the ROME timeout of 300ms. >> > >> > The timeout doesn't help here. With 78e8fa2972e5 ("Bluetooth: hci_qca: >> > Deassert RTS while baudrate change command") RTS is deasserted during >> > the baudrate change, hence the controller only sends the response when >> > RTS is asserted again. Before the event resulted in a frame reassembly >> > error and the data was discarded. >> > >> > > i suspect it is an timing issue. >> > >> > Timing is certainly also a factor here (the problem isn't seen >> > always), but I don't think 'timing issue' is a proper description of >> > this issue. The problem is an event that the Bluetooth core doesn't >> > expect due to the hack of sending a raw command behind the core's back >> > to work around the firmware 'feature' of sending the command response >> > with the new baudrate. >> > >> > Maybe a delay after re-asserting RTS can address is reliably, I don't >> > remember if I already experimented with that in the past. If a delay >> > can 'fix' the issue reliably I'm open to consider it for the sake of >> > simplicity, but only with a detailed comment that describes the >> > problem. >>
-- Regards Balakrishna.
| |