invalid vht params rate 1920 100kbps nss 2 mcs 9

[Paul Menzel]

Dear Baochen,


Thank you for your reply.

Am 26.06.24 um 10:53 schrieb Baochen Qiang:

> On 6/18/2024 6:33 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> + baochen
>>
>> James Prestwood <prestwoj at gmail.com> writes:

>>> On 6/17/24 8:27 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> James Prestwood writes:

>>>>> On 6/16/24 6:10 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:

>>>>>> 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?
> 
> OK, there are two issues here:
> 
> 1. invalid HT rate: "ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: invalid ht params rate 1440 100kbps nss 2 mcs 7".
> 
> As commented by Wen quite some time ago, this has been fixed from
> firmware side, and firmware newer than [ver:241] has the fix
> included.
This is the issue from 2021, correct?

> 2. invaid VHT rate: "ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: invalid vht params rate 1920 100kbps nss 2 mcs 9".
> 
> After checking with firmware team, I thought this is because there is
> a mismatch in rate definition between host and firmware: In host, the
> rate for 'nss 2 mcs 9' is defined as {1560, 1733}, see
> supported_vht_mcs_rate_nss2[]. While in firmware this is defined as
> {1730, 1920}. So seems we can update host definition to avoid this
> issue.
Looking through the logs since May 2024, I have four different logs:

1.  invalid vht params rate 878 100kbps nss 3 mcs 2
2.  invalid vht params rate 960 100kbps nss 1 mcs 9
3.  invalid vht params rate 1730 100kbps nss 2 mcs 9
4.  invalid vht params rate 1920 100kbps nss 2 mcs 9

I believe it’s only happening with Cisco networks. I am happy to test a 
patch.

By the way, is the firmware version logged by Linux?

     ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: qca6174 hw3.2 target 0x05030000 chip_id 
0x00340aff sub 1a56:1535
     ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: kconfig debug 0 debugfs 0 tracing 0 dfs 0 
testmode 0
     ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: firmware ver WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00288- api 6 
features wowlan,ignore-otp,mfp crc32 bf907c7c
     ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: board_file api 2 bmi_id N/A crc32 d2863f91
     ath10k_pci 0000:3a:00.0: htt-ver 3.87 wmi-op 4 htt-op 3 cal otp 
max-sta 32 raw 0 hwcrypto 1

Is it 4.4.1-00288? How can I find the file in `/lib/firmware/`?


Kind regards,

Paul