[PATCH] ath10k: abstract htt_rx_desc structure

Kalle Valo kvalo at codeaurora.org
Wed Nov 10 05:38:03 PST 2021

Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions at leemhuis.info> writes:

> On 08.11.21 17:25, Francesco Magliocca wrote:
>> QCA6174 card often hangs with the current htt_rx_desc
>> memory layout in some circumstances, because its firmware
>> fails to handle length differences.
>> Therefore we must abstract the htt_rx_desc structure
>> and operations on it, to allow different wireless cards
>> to use different, unrelated rx descriptor structures.
>> Define a base htt_rx_desc structure and htt_rx_desc_qca_old
>> for use with the QCA family of ath10k supported cards
>> and htt_rx_desc_new for use with the WCN3990 card.
>> Define htt_rx_desc_ops which contains the abstract operations
>> to access the generic htt_rx_desc, give implementations
>> for each card and update htt_rx.c to use the defined
>> abstract interface to rx descriptors.
>> Fixes: e3def6f7 ("ath10k: Update rx descriptor for WCN3990 target")

This should be:

Fixes: e3def6f7ddf8 ("ath10k: Update rx descriptor for WCN3990 target")

I can fix that during commit.

>> Tested-on: QCA6174 hw3.2 PCI WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00157-QCARMSWPZ-1
>> Co-developed-by: Enrico Lumetti <enrico at fracta.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Enrico Lumetti <enrico at fracta.dev>
>> Signed-off-by: Francesco Magliocca <franciman12 at gmail.com>
> As a Linux kernel regression tracker let me use this opportunity and
> say: Thanks for working on a fix for this regression.
> There is one small detail that could be improved: the commit message
> would benefit from a link to the regression report. This is explained in
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, which recently was changed
> slightly to make this aspect clearer:
> https://git.kernel.org/linus/1f57bd42b77c
> E.g. add something like this, just *without* the leading caret(¹):
> ^Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/ath10k/CAH4F6usFu8-A6k5Z7rU9__iENcSC6Zr-NtRhh_aypR74UvN1uQ@mail.gmail.com/
> Francesco, could you please do this in case you need to sent an improved
> version for other reasons? And if the patch is already good to go: could
> the subsystem maintainer please add it when applying?

I have not had a chance to review the patch yet, but I can add the link
during commit (if I'll apply this version).



More information about the ath10k mailing list