Firmware crash when sending large numbers of forwarded packets

[Kalle Valo]

Avery Pennarun <apenwarr at gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> Avery Pennarun <apenwarr at gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>> What I recommend is to use the master branch of my ath.git tree. That's
>>>> fairly recent wireless-testing (max 2 weeks old) plus latest ath10k +
>>>> ath6kl patches I have (ie. merge of wireless-testing and my ath-next
>>>> branch).
>>>
>>> Ok, thanks.  We're using a fairly old kernel on our device right now
>>> (3.2.26) so we're using the ath10k driver from linux-backports.  This
>>> means it's a little tricky to pick an arbitrary version if it has
>>> diverged too far from linux/master or linux-next.
>>
>> Yeah, you are not the only one using ath10k with linux-backports.
>> Ideally we should have our own "backports-ath10k" which contains latest
>> and greatest ath10k from my master tree. This would be really handy for
>> debugging problems and verifying bug fixes, but I don't see any way to
>> find time for that right now :/
>
> For what it's worth, linux-backports seems to get updated to match
> linux-next fairly frequently.  They have one for next-20140305 for
> example.  It's pretty easy for me to test against one of those.  It
> seems to be not so important to rebase on top of linux-backports as to
> rebase on top of (close to) same version linux-backports is using as
> input.
>
> When I looked at the 20140305 release though, it appears that the
> ath10k development has gotten quite far ahead of linux-next and some
> of the patches not yet in linux-next (eg. reset fixes) are pretty
> important.

I haven't looked very closely, but I suspect it will take several weeks
for patches to flow from my ath-next branch to backports. For important
fixes, like the cold reset workarounds, it's too long.

-- 
Kalle Valo