invalid vht params rate 1920 100kbps nss 2 mcs 9

[Baochen Qiang]

On 6/18/2024 6:33 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> + baochen
> 
> James Prestwood <prestwoj at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Kalle,
>>
>> On 6/17/24 8:27 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>> James Prestwood <prestwoj at gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> On 6/16/24 6:10 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>>> Dear Linux folks,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux 6.10-rc3 (commit a3e18a540541) logged the warning below when
>>>>> connecting to a public WiFi:
>>>>>
>>>>>      ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: invalid vht params rate 1920 100kbps
>>>>> nss 2 mcs 9
>>>> This has been reported/discussed [1]. It was hinted that there was a
>>>> firmware fix for this, but none that I tried got rid of it. I got fed
>>>> up enough with the logs filling up with this I patched our kernel to
>>>> remove the warning. AFAICT it appears benign (?). Removing the warning
>>>> was purely "cosmetic" so other devs stopped complaining about it :)
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ath10k@lists.infradead.org/msg13406.html
>>> More reliable link to the discussion:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/ath10k/76a816d983e6c4d636311738396f97971b5523fb.1612915444.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org/
>>>
>>> I think we should add this workaround I mentioned in 2021:
>>>
>>>     "If the firmware still keeps sending invalid rates we should add a
>>>      specific check to ignore the known invalid values, but not all of
>>>      them."
>>>
>>>     https://lore.kernel.org/ath10k/87h7mktjgi.fsf@codeaurora.org/
>>>
>>> I guess that would be mcs == 7 and rate == 1440?
>>
>> I think its more than this combination (Paul's are different). 
> 
> Good point.
> 
>> So how many combinations are we willing to add here? Seems like that
>> could get out of hand if there are more than a few invalid
>> combinations. 
> 
> Yeah, but there haven't been that many different values reported yet,
> right? And I expect that ath10k user base will just get smaller in the
> future so the chances are that we will get less reports.
> 
>> Would we also want to restrict the workaround to specific
>> hardware/firmware?
> 
> Good idea, limiting per hardware would be simple to implement using
> hw_params. Of course we could even limit this per firmware version using
> enum ath10k_fw_features, but not sure if that's worth all the extra work.
> 
> Baochen, do you know more about this firmware bug? Any suggestions?
will check with firmware team first.

>