From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522FFC47404 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B30215EA for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Mp2DLOFO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730137AbfJDKjM (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:39:12 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:46487 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729319AbfJDKjM (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 06:39:12 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id c6so12344806ioo.13; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 03:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qZkq2IFXpYdFUAnRVtV16PjDv6kvLyNtOPmSknMDol4=; b=Mp2DLOFOq3R1RI5KaWj39fc1oBw6TxRdIvXzsQ0B0fhH/lbeuSRNfiJKbUfuQrK7WH 5luCH418ZMKmk7qe9lJvudy6XbTFEhj7D24H5TAsxvrxV9kq6YvyOUFFCSEJQTbWr3i8 QbzrQTlwPeXbbkREqQ7/g37cQ9U+TPxmI3kcGQT/HFPvRsiNQp9ok+J4fvOV22K0oTHf C/vE9TMqxqjz4qzKwM6517/YXKAE3/+7CqG9BLlzpl2DT3ffDBl1/2aEBm4lH4gaAnhp ZIKW5V7EqoetyfZ4eF1VqmLidThv1DLK79zUP3ikQRTs7AIT8W8LGkyER9YzZvO9u2Ry k1xg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=qZkq2IFXpYdFUAnRVtV16PjDv6kvLyNtOPmSknMDol4=; b=Wdl7ISq4J9kwt1hnhdu44b95oUsN/aRLoCE4u2NelaYpbJHncV/8wObUCCVgTYjurt umNwNvKUwQ+JoFuJziyzHcl94u7WYFOEZS79wl3HgwyxsJPF/0nRM+1vbofGMWuqqPW4 vIjWeHNS46HOn4wGklGTKBv76hmr2GkTNaK6VY8gLfzwEQymIhqooOn+j97i6GI14Zb6 RXd/DxScQkPz93xSlbVroSq68k7MokDfvNR/e6BOdv8RG1kyqk/IOaRCSNNvAadbZwpo dTVuR4UVR63Rty6KSWlLUdpswS7NZVMd1OnxEEtdT4/DGEib0qtR2D0fMfUZ4ZX0TCP9 sNPw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXO8ZW3xS4aN513bkWf4o4nb4YuqvNBKkmmZXrRi+Y8Z6/LFTV8 MsAM73gAGizBUQnct+kfRkHe4/0DDEcDjczpGSM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+Xj/q8hbRyOg8+71Aa+R2dm9DnYdbORf3IizXzCYBaNRlGKcl0yuGyJeYNFdYvisEVnWOazRJtqbNoFnP1I0= X-Received: by 2002:a02:65cd:: with SMTP id u196mr13949946jab.3.1570185550237; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 03:39:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Adam Ford Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 05:38:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DM3730 Bluetooth Performance differences between SERIAL_8250_OMAP vs SERIAL_OMAP To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-OMAP , Vignesh R Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:02 AM Adam Ford wrote: > > I am running Kernel 5.3.2 trying to troubleshoot some intermittent > Bluetooth issues, and I think I have narrowed it down to the serial > driver in use. I should have also noted that it's using UART2 with CTS and RTS on the DM3730 (omap3630) and its configured with a baud rate of 3M. I tried slowing it to 115200, but that didn't help. I tried disabling the DMA hooks from the device tree, and that didn't help. > By default, omap2plus_defconfig enables both SERIAL_8250_OMAP and > SERIAL_OMAP. I have my console device configured as ttyS0, and all > appears fine. When I enable Bluetooth, however, I get intermittent > errors on an DM3730 / OMAP3630. > > Using the 8250 driver for Blueotooth I get intermittent frame errors > and data loss. > > Scanning ... > [ 28.482452] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > [ 36.162170] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84) > F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 BluJax > # l2ping F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 > Ping: F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 from 00:18:30:49:7D:63 (data size 44) ... > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 0 time 8.27ms > no response from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57: id 1 > ^C2 sent, 1 received, 50% loss > > (after a fairly long hang, I hit control-c) > > However, disabling the 8250 driver and using the only SERIAL_OMAP and > the console routed to ttyO0, the Bluetooth works well, so I believe it > to be a serial driver issue and not a Bluetooth error. > > # hcitool scan > Scanning ... > F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 BluJax > ^C > # l2ping F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 > Ping: F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 from 00:18:30:49:7D:63 (data size 44) ... > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 0 time 6.90ms > ... > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 14 time 28.29ms > ^C15 sent, 15 received, 0% loss > # > > 0% loss and regular, repeatable communication without any Frame > reassembly errors. > I tried disabling SERIAL_OMAP and using only SERIAL_8250_OMAP, but that didn't help. Because the issue goes away when I disable SERIAL_8250_OMAP, I am wondering if something is either being misconfigured or some IRQ or DMA integration is missing that may be present with the older SERIAL_OMAP driver. > Any suggestions on how to troubleshoot or what might cause the > difference between the two drivers? > > adam