[PATCH 5/5] ath10k: reduce invalid ht params rate message noise

[James Prestwood]

On 2/26/21 10:01 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 2/11/21 4:24 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 2/10/21 1:28 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Wen Gong <wgong at codeaurora.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-02-10 08:42, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>>> ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht() floods dmesg with the following
>>>>>> messages,
>>>>>> when it fails to find a match for mcs=7 and rate=1440.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> supported_ht_mcs_rate_nss2:
>>>>>> {7,  {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: invalid ht params rate 1440 100kbps nss 2
>>>>>> mcs 7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dev_warn_ratelimited() isn't helping the noise. Use dev_warn_once()
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 5 +++--
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>>>> index 3545ce7dce0a..276321f0cfdd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>>>> @@ -8970,8 +8970,9 @@ static void 
>>>>>> ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht(struct
>>>>>> ath10k *ar, u32 rate, u8 nss, u8
>>>>>>            *bw |= RATE_INFO_BW_40;
>>>>>>            *flags |= RATE_INFO_FLAGS_SHORT_GI;
>>>>>>        } else {
>>>>>> -        ath10k_warn(ar, "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss 
>>>>>> %d mcs %d",
>>>>>> -                rate, nss, mcs);
>>>>>> +        dev_warn_once(ar->dev,
>>>>>> +                  "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss %d mcs 
>>>>>> %d",
>>>>>> +                  rate, nss, mcs);
>>>>>>        }
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> The {7,  {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} } is a correct value.
>>>>> The 1440 is report from firmware, its a wrong value, it has fixed in
>>>>> firmware.
>>>>
>>>> In what version?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the info:
>>>
>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: qca6174 hw3.2 target 0x05030000 chip_id
>>> 0x00340aff sub 17aa:0827
>>>
>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: firmware ver WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00140-QCARMSWPZ-1
>>> api 6 features wowlan,ignore-otp,mfp crc32 29eb8ca1
>>>
>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: board_file api 2 bmi_id N/A crc32 4ac0889b
>>>
>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: htt-ver 3.60 wmi-op 4 htt-op 3 cal otp
>>> max-sta 32 raw 0 hwcrypto 1
>>>
>>>>> If change it to dev_warn_once, then it will have no chance to find 
>>>>> the
>>>>> other wrong values which report by firmware, and it indicate
>>>>> a wrong value to mac80211/cfg80211 and lead "iw wlan0 station dump"
>>>>> get a wrong bitrate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> I agree, we should keep this warning. 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would it be helpful to adjust the default rate limits and set the to
>>> a higher value instead. It might be difficult to account all possible
>>> invalid values?
>>>
>>> Something like, ath10k_warn_ratelimited() to adjust the
>>>
>>> DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST using
>>> DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE
>>>
>>> Let me know if you like this idea. I can send a patch in to do this.
>>> I will hang on to this firmware version for a little but longer, so
>>> we have a test case. :)
>>
>> I would rather first try to fix the root cause, which is the firmware
>> sending invalid rates. Wen, you mentioned there's a fix in firmware. Do
>> you know which firmware version (and branch) has the fix?
>>
>
> Picking this back up. Wen, which firmware version has this fix? I can
> test this on my system and get rid of the noisy messages. :)
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah

I know its been years, but reading through this Wen mentioned there is a 
fix in the firmware? I haven't tried all of the firmware binaries in 
Kalle's tree but the most recent definitely still spam the logs with 
this message. Is there a specific version I can use to get rid of these?

One thing to note is the older "firmware-4.bin" did not have this 
problem, but was met with worse problems like driver/firmware crashes.

Thanks,

James

>
> _______________________________________________
> ath10k mailing list
> ath10k at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
>