[PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: net: wireless: ath10k: add qcom,no-msa-ready-indicator prop

[Kalle Valo]

Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez at freebox.fr> writes:

> On 30/04/2024 06:06, Kalle Valo wrote:
>
>> Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 04:04:51PM +0200, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ath10k driver waits for an "MSA_READY" indicator
>>>> to complete initialization. If the indicator is not
>>>> received, then the device remains unusable.
>>>>
>>>> cf. ath10k_qmi_driver_event_work()
>>>>
>>>> Several msm8998-based devices are affected by this issue.
>>>> Oddly, it seems safe to NOT wait for the indicator, and
>>>> proceed immediately when QMI_EVENT_SERVER_ARRIVE.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   The feedback I received was "it might be ok to change all ath10k qmi
>>>>   to skip waiting for msa_ready", and it was pointed out that ath11k
>>>>   (and ath12k) do not wait for it.
>>>>
>>>>   However with so many deployed devices, "might be ok" isn't a strong
>>>>   argument for changing the default behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Kalle Valo first suggested setting a bit in firmware-5.bin to trigger
>>>> work-around in the driver. However, firmware-5.bin is parsed too late.
>>>> So we are stuck with a DT property.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Hugues Husson <phhusson at freebox.fr>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <mgonzalez at freebox.fr>
>>>
>>> This says "Pierre-Hugues certifies the origin of the patch" then "Marc
>>> certifies the origin of the patch". This would have to imply that
>>> Pierre-Hugues authored the patch, but you're listed as the author...
>>>
>>> Perhaps a suitable answer to this question would be to add
>>> "Co-developed-by: Pierre-Hugues ..." above his s-o-b, which implies that
>>> the two of you jointly came up with this and both certify the origin.
>> 
>> BTW I can add that in the pending branch, no need to resend because of
>> this. Just need guidance from Marc.
>
> I typed this patch all by myself with my grubby little paws.
> You can drop PH's S-o-b.
>
>>> Other than that, I think this looks good, so please upon addressing this
>>> problem feel free to add my:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande at quicinc.com>
>> 
>> Thanks, I'll then add this as well.
>
> Cool. Almost there :)

All I need is an ack from DT maintainers for this patch.

DT maintainers: I think this is the best option and I can't think of any
other solution so I would prefer to take this approach to our ath.git
tree if it's ok for you.

IIRC someone suggested testing for firmware version string but I suspect
that has the same problem as the firmware-N.bin approach: ath10k gets
the firmware version too late. And besides it's difficult to maintain
such a list in ath10k, it would always need kernel updates when there's
a new firmware etc.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches