Re: [RFC/T] b43: to few loop tries in do_dummy_tx
From: Michael Buesch <hidden>
Date: 2008-09-29 18:39:06
On Monday 29 September 2008 20:31:58 Larry Finger wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Michael, I have started modifying my copy of b43 to see if I can locate any coding problems that might be causing the PHY transmission errors. To start with, I am checking all the sections that use udelay. The main reason is that when a bug in the CPU timer cut all delays in half, I got these errors in b43legacy. I also noted the report this morning that compiler and toolchain versions seem to be important. One of the first places I looked was in do_dummy_tx. When I checked the spin-on-condition loops in this routine, I found that the 3rd always used the maximum number of loops and exited before the condition was met. I increased the number of possible loops from 10 to 20 and found that it always takes 17 or 18 passes for the condition to be met on my machine. The existing code matches specs - I even checked the code in 4.150.10.5. It is too early to tell if this has anything to do with the errors, but I suggest the following change:diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.cb/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c index 7205a93..af60122 100644--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/main.c@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ void b43_dummy_transmission(struct b43_wldev *dev) break; udelay(10); } - for (i = 0x00; i < 0x0A; i++) { + for (i = 0x00; i < 0x19; i++) { value = b43_read16(dev, 0x0690); if (!(value & 0x0100)) break;Using 25 passes gives a little margin for CPUs that are much faster than mine. Perhaps the margin should even be bigger.
Yeah, feel free to submit this to John. Dummy-tx _can_ for sure trigger PHY TX errors. I already saw that in my experiments, too. It also makes sense, as dummy-tx is poking with the lowlevel TX hardware. So if a loop exists early it may leave TX hardware in an inconsistent state. Actually, I do know since the very first days of bcm43xx that the loop counts are not big enough in some of these loops. But I didn't change it, as it was said the current counts match the specs. However, I think it's perfectly valid to raise the values. Please do so, thanks a lot. -- Greetings Michael.