[PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags
0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
- if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
- (sta->vht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
- switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
- case 1560:
- /* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
- break;
- case 780:
- /* Can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz (Long Guard Interval) */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 1;
- break;
- }
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override |=
BW_NSS_FWCONF_80_80(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
}
+
+ /* In very exceptional conditions it is observed that
+* firmware was receiving bw_rxnss_override as 0 for peer from host,
and resulting in Target Assert.
+* Changing the rxnss_override to minimum nss. This is a temporary WAR.
Needs to be fixed
+* properly.
+*/
+ if (!arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_ENABLE;
+ }
+
+ ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags
0x%x\n",
+ sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
}
static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_qos(struct ath10k *ar,
@@ -2696,9 +2700,9 @@ static int ath10k_peer_assoc_prepare(struct ath10k *ar,
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_crypto(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_rates(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_ht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
+ ath10k_peer_assoc_h_phymode(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_qos(ar, vif, sta, arg);
- ath10k_peer_assoc_h_phymode(ar, vif, sta, arg);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
index 2c36256a441d..7d72fdc703c8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
@@ -7212,9 +7212,7 @@ ath10k_wmi_peer_assoc_fill_10_4(struct ath10k *ar, void
*buf,
ath10k_wmi_peer_assoc_fill_10_2(ar, buf, arg);
if (arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override)
- cmd->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
- __cpu_to_le32((arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override - 1) |
- BIT(PEER_BW_RXNSS_OVERRIDE_OFFSET));
+ cmd->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
__cpu_to_le32(arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override);
else
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags
0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From what I
can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if peer is
VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
- if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
- (sta->vht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
- switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
- case 1560:
- /* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
- break;
- case 780:
- /* Can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz (Long Guard Interval) */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 1;
- break;
- }
This old code does look wrong, the firmware is using zero-based, so override-0
== nss-1, override-1 == nss-2.
This is confusing enough that it deserves a comment in the code I think
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override |=
BW_NSS_FWCONF_80_80(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
}
+
+ /* In very exceptional conditions it is observed that
+* firmware was receiving bw_rxnss_override as 0 for peer from host,
and resulting in Target Assert.
+* Changing the rxnss_override to minimum nss. This is a temporary WAR.
Needs to be fixed
+* properly.
+*/
+ if (!arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_ENABLE;
+ }
+
+ ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags
0x%x\n",
+ sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
}
static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_qos(struct ath10k *ar,
@@ -2696,9 +2700,9 @@ static int ath10k_peer_assoc_prepare(struct ath10k *ar,
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_crypto(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_rates(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_ht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
+ ath10k_peer_assoc_h_phymode(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_qos(ar, vif, sta, arg);
- ath10k_peer_assoc_h_phymode(ar, vif, sta, arg);
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
index 2c36256a441d..7d72fdc703c8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on
guessing the VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may
lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is
required since VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in
addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the
parameter by minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary
workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36
+++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d
flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From
what I can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if
peer is VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or vht80_80.
vht80 is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
- if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
- (sta->vht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
- switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
- case 1560:
- /* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
- break;
- case 780:
- /* Can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz (Long Guard Interval) */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 1;
- break;
- }
This old code does look wrong, the firmware is using zero-based, so
override-0 == nss-1, override-1 == nss-2.
0 = crash
and 1 and 2 is wrong.
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_ENABLE (1 << 31)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_160MHZ_S (0)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_160MHZ_M (0x0007)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_80_80MHZ_S (3)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_80_80MHZ_M (0x0038)
This is confusing enough that it deserves a comment in the code I
think
the removal doesnt deserve a comment. i dont know how to explain that
its simply wrong. it uses the wrong
bit masks and this has been written in the initial patch description
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override |=
BW_NSS_FWCONF_80_80(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
}
+
+ /* In very exceptional conditions it is observed that
+ * firmware was receiving bw_rxnss_override as 0 for peer from
host, and resulting in Target Assert.
+ * Changing the rxnss_override to minimum nss. This is a
temporary WAR. Needs to be fixed
+ * properly.
+ */
+ if (!arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT80_80 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_ENABLE;
+ }
+
+ ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d
flags 0x%x\n",
+ sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, ar
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
-if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+}
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
-ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160
|| arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+}
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From what I
can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if peer is
VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or vht80_80. vht80
is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the rate-ctrl in
the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can send at
higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have peer_num_spatial_streams set to
2? If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate it can
send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
Probably if you connected something like a IPQ4019 station to a 9984 AP
configured for 160Mhz,
the peer_bw_rxnss_override would be set to 2x2 instead of 1x1?
-if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
-(sta->vht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
-switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
-case 1560:
-/* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
-arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
-break;
-case 780:
-/* Can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz (Long Guard Interval) */
-arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 1;
-break;
-}
This old code does look wrong, the firmware is using zero-based, so override-0
== nss-1, override-1 == nss-2.
0 = crash
and 1 and 2 is wrong.
Yes, it should be 0 and 1. The old code | in the (1<<31) later.
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_ENABLE (1 << 31)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_160MHZ_S (0)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_160MHZ_M (0x0007)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_80_80MHZ_S (3)
+#define BW_NSS_FWCONF_MAP_80_80MHZ_M (0x0038)
This is confusing enough that it deserves a comment in the code I think
the removal doesnt deserve a comment. i dont know how to explain that its
simply wrong. it uses the wrong
bit masks and this has been written in the initial patch description
I think a comment like this would be helpful:
/* Note that the rxnss_override is 0 bas
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on
guessing the VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and
may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is
required since VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks
in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for
correct initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the
parameter by minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary
workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36
+++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d
flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP.
From what I can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if
peer is VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams
here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or
vht80_80. vht80 is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not
HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the
rate-ctrl in the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can
send at higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is
connecting with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which is
used if available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have
peer_num_spatial_streams set to 2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer does
transmit his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate
it can send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
Probably if you connected something like a IPQ4019 station to a 9984
AP configured for 160Mhz,
the peer_bw_rxnss_override would be set to 2x2 instead of 1x1?
depends how the ipq4019 chipset is configured. if it itself is
configured to 160 mhz and configured to 2x2, yes
but the peer itself can also send with 1x1, then the ap will also send
just 1x1
but as i said. this all is just used if the peer is configured to vht160
and if num_spatial_stream is set by peer.
of not this is all ignored and only 1<<31 is masked. this way has been
taken from qca's propertiery code
or lets say not taken but the behaviour has been translated
- if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
- (sta->vht_cap.cap &
IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
- switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
- case 1560:
- /* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
- break;
- case 780:
- /* Can only do 1x1 at
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
On 04/26/2018 09:40 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
-if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+}
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
-ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160
|| arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+}
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From what I
can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if peer is
VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or vht80_80. vht80
is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the rate-ctrl in
the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can send at
higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is connecting
with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which is used if
available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have peer_num_spatial_streams set to
2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer does transmit
his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate it can
send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
The peer can run at 2x2 80Mhz and 1x1 160Mhz at the same time, so it can
advertise
2x2 nss and phy-mode of 160Mhz when associating to the 160Mhz AP, but the peer
can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz. There
is no standard way I know of for the peer to tell you specifically that it can
only do
1x1 at 160Mhz and also 2x2 at 80Mhz in this case.
That is why this rxnns_override exists, to hack around this problem.
Your patch is going to break in this case as far as I can tell.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
Am 27.04.2018 um 18:07 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 09:40 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on
guessing the VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and
may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is
required since VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks
in addition the original code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for
correct initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the
parameter by minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary
workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36
+++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d
flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP.
From what I can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but
if peer is VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the
peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or
vht80_80. vht80 is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not
HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the
rate-ctrl in the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can
send at higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is
connecting with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which is
used if available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have
peer_num_spatial_streams set to 2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer
does transmit his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate
it can send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
The peer can run at 2x2 80Mhz and 1x1 160Mhz at the same time, so it
can advertise
2x2 nss and phy-mode of 160Mhz when associating to the 160Mhz AP, but
the peer can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz. There
is no standard way I know of for the peer to tell you specifically
that it can only do
1x1 at 160Mhz and also 2x2 at 80Mhz in this case.
per specification the peer is able to provide max nss to the ap. the
rx_nss property is calculated
from the mcs rateset provided by the peer by mac80211. this is mcs set
provided on on assoc is mandatory.
so there is a way the peer can tell you what it supports and this is
what is used.
if a peer does not provide the mcs rateset (which i have seen for a
single marvell client)
the fallback mechanism will still work, but just with 1x1. the problem
is anything else will crash the firmware.
we have to deal with that.
That is why this rxnns_override exists, to hack a
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
On 04/27/2018 11:54 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 27.04.2018 um 18:07 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 09:40 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original
code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
-if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+}
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
-ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160
|| arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+}
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From what I
can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if peer is
VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or vht80_80. vht80
is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the rate-ctrl in
the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can send at
higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is connecting
with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which is used if
available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have peer_num_spatial_streams set to
2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer does transmit
his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate it can
send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
The peer can run at 2x2 80Mhz and 1x1 160Mhz at the same time, so it can
advertise
2x2 nss and phy-mode of 160Mhz when associating to the 160Mhz AP, but the peer
can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz. There
is no standard way I know of for the peer to tell you specifically that it can
only do
1x1 at 160Mhz and also 2x2 at 80Mhz in this case.
per specification the peer is able to provide max nss to the ap. the rx_nss
property is calculated
from the mcs rateset provided by the peer by mac80211. this is mcs set provided
on on assoc is mandatory.
so there is a way the peer can tell you what it supports and this is what is
used.
if a peer does not provide the mcs rateset (which i have seen for a single
marvell client)
the fallback mechanism will still work, but just with 1x1. the problem is
anything else will crash the firmware.
we have to deal with that.
That is why this
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:57 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/27/2018 11:54 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 27.04.2018 um 18:07 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 09:40 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based
on guessing the VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is
wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is
required since VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2
chainmasks in addition the original
code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for
correct initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the
parameter by minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary
workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36
+++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
- if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+ if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+ }
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set =
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
- ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu
%d flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+ if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode ==
MODE_11AC_VHT160 || arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+ }
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160
AP. From what I can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case,
but if peer is VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the
peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or
vht80_80. vht80 is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not
HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say
here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the
rate-ctrl in the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it
can send at higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is
connecting with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which
is used if available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have
peer_num_spatial_streams set to 2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer
does transmit his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to
indicate it can send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
The peer can run at 2x2 80Mhz and 1x1 160Mhz at the same time, so it
can advertise
2x2 nss and phy-mode of 160Mhz when associating to the 160Mhz AP,
but the peer can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz. There
is no standard way I know of for the peer to tell you specifically
that it can only do
1x1 at 160Mhz and also 2x2 at 80Mhz in this case.
per specification the peer is able to provide max nss to the ap. the
rx_nss property is calculated
from the mcs rateset provided by the peer by mac80211. this is mcs
set provided on on assoc is mandatory.
so there is a way the peer can tell you what it supports and this is
what is used.
if a peer does not provide the mcs rateset (which i have seen for a
single marvell client)
the fallback mechanism will still work, but just with 1x1. the
problem is anything else will crash the
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
I did some testing with the patch below.
i mean you tested your own patch here but i dont see results for mine.
i tested my patch in the same way, just not on firmware side
but i logged the values for rxnss_override and the looked correct all
the time
The CHAIMASK_ERR is a debug log from FW that I added to help make sure
the patch is
acting as desired. The first hex is an identifier, second is the
value passed in,
third is phymode, 4th is the tx-chain-mask for 160Mhz frames.
On station side, when associating a 4x4 9984 station to 9984
configured for nss4, 160Mhz, I see:
[86376.620303] ath10k_pci :04:00.0: NIC rx-max-rate: 1560
calculated-max: 1560 rxnss_override: 0x8009 nss160: 2
spatial-streams: 4
ath10k-fw: ts: 15229 args: 4 RATE_CTRL(19) vid: 255
CHAINMASK_ERR(03) 0x00af 0x8009 0x000f 0x0003
On station side, when associating a 4x4 9984 station with chain-mask
of 0x3 (2x2) to 9984 configured for nss4, 160Mhz, I see:
[86147.569319] ath10k_pci :04:00.0: NIC rx-max-rate: 1560
calculated-max: 780 rxnss_override: 0x8000 nss160: 1
spatial-streams: 2
ath10k-fw: ts: 6807 args: 4 RATE_CTRL(19) vid: 255 CHAINMASK_ERR(03)
0x00af 0x8000 0x000f 0x0001
On AP side, when associating a 4x4 9984 station to 9984 configured for
160Mhz, I see:
[11167.635324] ath10k_pci :04:00.0: NIC rx-max-rate: 1560
calculated-max: 1560 rxnss_override: 0x8009 nss160: 2
spatial-streams: 4
ath10k-fw: ts: 72917 args: 4 RATE_CTRL(19) vid: 255
CHAINMASK_ERR(03) 0x00af 0x8009 0x000f 0x0003
On AP side, when associating a 4x4 9984 station with chain-mask of 0x3
(2x2) to 9984 configured for nss4, 160Mhz, I see:
[11422.887181] ath10k_pci :04:00.0: NIC rx-max-rate: 1560
calculated-max: 780 rxnss_override: 0x8000 nss160: 1
spatial-streams: 2
ath10k-fw: ts: 334266 args: 4 RATE_CTRL(19) vid: 255
CHAINMASK_ERR(03) 0x00af 0x8000 0x000f 0x0001
On AP side, when associating a 4x4 9984 station configured for 80Mhz
instead of 160,
then logging from firmware indicates full 4x4 rates are supported for
80Mhz and below,
and the rxnss_override does not have the (1<<31) bit set:
ath10k-fw: ts: 519211 args: 4 RATE_CTRL(19) vid: 255
CHAINMASK_ERR(03) 0x00af 0x 0x000a 0x0001
So, I think this might be a better fix for this problem (included
inline for discussion,
probably white-space damaged by email client:
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index e1ad983..8bce916 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2860,18 +2860,39 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct
ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate,
arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_mcs_set,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_max_rate,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set);
- if (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate &&
- (sta->vht_cap.cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK)) {
- switch (arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate) {
+ if (arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80 ||
+ arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160) {
+ int nss160;
+ int rx = arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate;
+ /* Deal with cases where chainmask has been decreased.
+ * All known chips that support 160Mhz can do only 1/2 of
+ * the available chains at 160Mhz.
+ */
+ rx = min((int)(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams * 390), rx);
+
+ switch (rx) {
+ /* When a NIC shows up that can do 4x4 at 160Mhz, its
+ * max-rate should be higher, and we can set nss160
+ * to 4 here.
+ */
case 1560:
/* Must be 2x2 at 160Mhz is all it can do. */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 2;
+ nss160 = 2;
break;
- case 780:
- /* Can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz (Long Guard Interval) */
- arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = 1;
+ default:
+ /* Assume we can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz */
+ nss160 = 1;
break;
}
+
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override = ((nss160 - 1) | /* 160Mhz nss */
+ ((nss160 - 1) << 3) | /* 80+80 nss */
+ BIT(PEER_BW_RXNSS_OVERRIDE_OFFSET));
+
+ ath10k_warn(ar, "NIC rx-max-rate: %d calculated-max: %d
rxnss_override: 0x%x nss160: %d spatial-streams: %d\n",
+ arg->peer_vht_rates.rx_max_rate, rx,
+ arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override, nss160,
+ arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
}
}
@@ -3115,9 +3136,9 @@ static int ath10k_peer_assoc_prepare(struct
ath10k *ar,
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_crypto(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_rates(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_ht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
+ ath10k_peer_assoc_h_phymode(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(ar, vif, sta, arg);
ath10k_p
Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: fix crash in recent 3.5.3 9984 firmware due wrong handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter
On 04/27/2018 05:24 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 27.04.2018 um 23:57 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/27/2018 11:54 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 27.04.2018 um 18:07 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 09:40 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 22:35 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 01:21 PM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
Am 26.04.2018 um 17:30 schrieb Ben Greear:
On 04/26/2018 02:28 AM, s.gottsch...@dd-wrt.com wrote:
From: Sebastian Gottschall
current handling of peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter is based on guessing the
VHT160/8080 capability by rx rate. this is wrong and may lead
to a non initialized peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter which is required since
VHT160 operation mode only supports 2x2 chainmasks in addition the original
code
initialized the parameter with wrong masked values.
This patch uses the peer phymode and peer nss information for correct
initialisation of the peer_bw_rxnss_override parameter.
if this peer information is not available, we initialize the parameter by
minimum nss which is suggested by QCA as temporary workaround according
to the QCA sourcecodes.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Gottschall
v2: remove debug messages
---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 36 +++
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.h | 14 +-
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
index 5be6386ede8f..df79af89ee71 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
@@ -2505,8 +2505,9 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_80)
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw80;
-if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160)
+if (sta->bandwidth == IEEE80211_STA_RX_BW_160) {
arg->peer_flags |= ar->wmi.peer_flags->bw160;
+}
/* Calculate peer NSS capability from VHT capabilities if STA
* supports VHT.
@@ -2529,22 +2530,25 @@ static void ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht(struct ath10k *ar,
arg->peer_vht_rates.tx_mcs_set = ath10k_peer_assoc_h_vht_limit(
__le16_to_cpu(vht_cap->vht_mcs.tx_mcs_map), vht_mcs_mask);
-ath10k_dbg(ar, ATH10K_DBG_MAC, "mac vht peer %pM max_mpdu %d flags 0x%x\n",
- sta->addr, arg->peer_max_mpdu, arg->peer_flags);
+if (arg->peer_num_spatial_streams && (arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT160
|| arg->peer_phymode == MODE_11AC_VHT80_80)) {
+arg->peer_bw_rxnss_override =
BW_NSS_FWCONF_160(arg->peer_num_spatial_streams);
+}
So, an 80Mhz peer could be 4x4 and could connect to a VHT-160 AP. From what I
can tell,
the VHT-160 AP can talk 4x4 @ 80Mhz to the peer in this case, but if peer is
VHT-160,
then of course it can only talk at 2x2.
So, I don't think you can just look at the peer_num_spatial_streams here.
no? rxnss_override is only taked if peer phymode is vht160 or vht80_80. vht80
is not considered in that code PEER phy_mode, not HOST phy_mode
this parameter is a assoc per peer parameter as far as i can say here.
consider that the firmware will accept anything except 0 for
peer_bw_rxnss_override in vht160 operation mode
if a peer is 80 mhz, the code will be skipped here.
From what I can tell, this feature is supposed to configure the rate-ctrl in
the firmware to know that
it can only send 1x1 or 2x2 when sending at 160Mhz, but that it can send at
higher NSS if it sends
at 80Mhz or lower.
right. but thats exactly what it should does in case that a peer is connecting
with vht160 / 80_80
and the peer itself does also send his own nss capabilities which is used if
available. if not ,it uses the fallback.
If a 2x2 peer connects to the AP, will it have peer_num_spatial_streams set to
2?
yes. i had some debug code in my initial early versions. the peer does transmit
his own nss capabilities.
If so,
then your code will configure the peer_bw_rxnss_override to indicate it can
send at 160Mhz
2x2 as well, right? And if so, then that is incorrect.
no. since nss_override is only set if peer phymode is 160 mhz as well
The peer can run at 2x2 80Mhz and 1x1 160Mhz at the same time, so it can
advertise
2x2 nss and phy-mode of 160Mhz when associating to the 160Mhz AP, but the peer
can only do 1x1 at 160Mhz. There
is no standard way I know of for the peer to tell you specifically that it can
only do
1x1 at 160Mhz and also 2x2 at 80Mhz in this case.
per specification the peer is able to provide max nss to the ap. the rx_nss
property is calculated
from the mcs rateset provided by the peer by mac80211. this is mcs set provided
on on assoc is mandatory.
so there is a way the peer can tell you what it supports and this is what is
used.
if a peer does not provide the mcs rateset (which i have seen for a single
marvell client)
the fallback mechanism will still work, but just with 1x1. the probl
