[PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8998: set qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator for wifi

Kalle Valo kvalo at kernel.org
Thu Apr 25 02:42:20 PDT 2024

Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez at freebox.fr> writes:

> On 04/04/2024 17:28, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2024 13:57, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> I'd say, we should take a step back and actually verify how this was
>>>>> handled in the vendor kernel.
>>>> One comment related to this: usually vendor driver and firmware branches
>>>> go "hand in hand", meaning that a version of driver supports only one
>>>> specific firmware branch. And there can be a lot of branches. So even if
>>>> one branch might have a check for something specific, there are no
>>>> guarantees what the other N+1 branches do :/
>>> The consequences and ramifications of the above comment are not clear to me.
>>> Does this mean:
>>> "It is pointless to analyze a given version (or even several versions)
>>> of the vendor driver downstream, because there are exist a large number
>>> of variations of the code." ?
>> I was trying to say that because the design philosophy between vendor
>> drivers and upstream drivers is very different, we can't 100% trust
>> vendor drivers. It's a very good idea to check what vendor drivers do
>> but we just need to be careful before making any conclusions. Testing
>> real hardware (and corresponding firmware) is the most reliable way to
>> know how different products/firmware work, unfortunately.
>>> And thus, "it is nonsensical to try to "align" the mainline driver to
>>> "the" vendor driver, as there is no single "vendor driver"" ?
>> No no, I'm not saying that. I have suffered this "N+1 different firmware
>> branches behaving slighly differently" problem since ath6kl days so for
>> me this is business as usual, sadly. I'm sure we can find a solution for
>> ath10k.
> Hello Kalle,
> I can spin a v3, no problem.
> Do you prefer:
> Option A = never waiting for the MSA_READY indicator for ANYONE
> Option B = not waiting for the MSA_READY indicator when
> qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator is defined
> Option C = not waiting for the MSA_READY indicator for certain
> platforms (based on root compatible)
> Option D = some other solution not yet discussed

After firmware-N.bin solution didn't work (sorry about that!) my
prerence is option B.

> Dmitry has tested Option A on 5 platforms, where it does not induce regressions.
> I worked on msm8998, where Option A (or any equivalent) unbreaks WiFi.

What do you mean here? Are you saying that option A works on all
devices? I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding something.



More information about the ath10k mailing list