ath11k: QCA6390 support on Linux

[Kenny Johansson]

An update here,
* 3650b228f83a 5.10-rc1 works intermittently, I would say less than
50%, but more than 25% of times.
* fd5ad4d1e980 worked consistently for at least 10 boots.

I will follow that discussion, it sounds like a good lead.

(You correctly spotted the commit typo in my previous email.)

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 7:24 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Kenny Johansson <wirehell at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Short story:
> > * Firmware matches
> > * Reverting 7fef431be9c9 does not work
> > * fd5ad4d1e980 works
> > * 3650b228f83a does not work
>
> An excellent summary, makes it a lot easier to understand what's
> happening :)
>
> > Details:
> >
> > Firmware matches:
> > ~/qca$ md5sum /lib/firmware/ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/*
> > a101dc90f8e876f39383b60c9da64ec4  /lib/firmware/ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/amss.bin
> > 4c0781f659d2b7d6bef10a2e3d457728  /lib/firmware/ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/board-2.bin
> > d4c912a3501a3694a3f460d13de06d28  /lib/firmware/ath11k/QCA6390/hw2.0/m3.bin
>
> Good, we can rule out firmware corruption then.
>
> > The commit 3650b228f83a worked
> >
> > [    7.452884] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: WARNING: ath11k PCI support is
> > experimental!
> > [    7.452926] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: BAR 0: assigned [mem
> > 0xb4200000-0xb42fffff 64bit]
> > [    7.452939] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002)
> > [    7.941932] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: Respond mem req failed,
> > result: 1, err: 0
> > [    7.941933] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: qmi failed to respond fw mem req:-22
> > [    7.952897] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: chip_id 0x0 chip_family 0xb
> > board_id 0xff soc_id 0xffffffff
> > [    7.952897] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0: fw_version 0x101c06cc
> > fw_build_timestamp 2020-06-24 19:50 fw_build_id
> > [    8.156172] ath11k_pci 0000:6c:00.0 wlp108s0: renamed from wlan0
>
> I think you have a typo here and you mean that commit fd5ad4d1e980
> worked, right? The one which is based on v5.9-rc6:
>
> fd5ad4d1e980 wcn36xx: Advertise beacon filtering support in bmps
>
> > I will try to use fd5ad4d1e980 a bit more to make sure it is not
> > something intermittent, though I suspect not as the bringup-branch
> > seemed to work consistently, while the latest seems consistently
> > broken for me.
>
> Yes, it's a good idea to rule out all intermittent issues. This is a
> weird problem and any randomness might confuse the testing results.
>
> Even if your symptoms are different I suspect this is related to Pavel's
> problem, where the number one suspect is high physical addresses are
> causing problems:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath11k/2020-November/000556.html
>
> --
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
>
> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches