All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: "greearb@candelatech.com" <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: Retry pci probe on failure.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:41:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a80vnrsb.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507068826-14677-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (greearb@candelatech.com's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:13:46 -0700")

greearb@candelatech.com writes:

> From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>
> This works around a problem we see when sometimes the wifi NIC does
> not respond the first time.  This seems to happen especially often on
> some of the 9984 NICs in mid-range platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>

[...]

> -static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> -			    const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
> +static int __ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> +			      const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
>  {
>  	int ret =3D 0;
>  	struct ath10k *ar;
> @@ -3672,6 +3672,22 @@ static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  	return ret;
>  }
> =20
> +static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> +			    const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
> +{
> +	int cnt =3D 0;
> +	int rv;
> +	do {
> +		rv =3D __ath10k_pci_probe(pdev, pci_dev);
> +		if (rv =3D=3D 0)
> +			return rv;
> +		pr_err("ath10k: failed to probe PCI : %d, retry-count: %d\n", rv, cnt)=
;
> +		mdelay(10); /* let the ath10k firmware gerbil take a small break */
> +	} while (cnt++ < 10);
> +	return rv;
> +}

This is a sledgehammer approach and it causes reload for all error
cases, like when hardware is broken or memory allocation is failing.

When the problem happens does it always fail at the the same place? Is
it hw reset or something else? It's better to retry the invidiual action
than to do this hack. Or is it just some more delay needed somewhere?

--=20
Kalle Valo=

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
To: "greearb@candelatech.com" <greearb@candelatech.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: Retry pci probe on failure.
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:41:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a80vnrsb.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1507068826-14677-1-git-send-email-greearb@candelatech.com> (greearb@candelatech.com's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:13:46	-0700")

greearb@candelatech.com writes:

> From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>
> This works around a problem we see when sometimes the wifi NIC does
> not respond the first time.  This seems to happen especially often on
> some of the 9984 NICs in mid-range platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>

[...]

> -static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> -			    const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
> +static int __ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> +			      const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
>  	struct ath10k *ar;
> @@ -3672,6 +3672,22 @@ static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static int ath10k_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> +			    const struct pci_device_id *pci_dev)
> +{
> +	int cnt = 0;
> +	int rv;
> +	do {
> +		rv = __ath10k_pci_probe(pdev, pci_dev);
> +		if (rv == 0)
> +			return rv;
> +		pr_err("ath10k: failed to probe PCI : %d, retry-count: %d\n", rv, cnt);
> +		mdelay(10); /* let the ath10k firmware gerbil take a small break */
> +	} while (cnt++ < 10);
> +	return rv;
> +}

This is a sledgehammer approach and it causes reload for all error
cases, like when hardware is broken or memory allocation is failing.

When the problem happens does it always fail at the the same place? Is
it hw reset or something else? It's better to retry the invidiual action
than to do this hack. Or is it just some more delay needed somewhere?

-- 
Kalle Valo
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-13 12:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-03 22:13 [PATCH v2] ath10k: Retry pci probe on failure greearb
2017-10-03 22:13 ` greearb
2017-10-13 12:41 ` Kalle Valo [this message]
2017-10-13 12:41   ` Kalle Valo
2017-10-13 15:50   ` Adrian Chadd
2017-10-13 15:50     ` Adrian Chadd
2017-10-13 20:41     ` Ben Greear
2017-10-13 20:41       ` Ben Greear
2017-10-13 20:55       ` Adrian Chadd
2017-10-13 20:55         ` Adrian Chadd
2017-10-17  8:45       ` Kalle Valo
2017-10-17  8:45         ` Kalle Valo
2017-10-17 15:57         ` Ben Greear
2017-10-17 15:57           ` Ben Greear

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87a80vnrsb.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com \
    --to=kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=greearb@candelatech.com \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.