Driver used to kick off every TX packets, that will waste some
time while we can do better to kick off the TX packets once after
they are all prepared to be transmitted.
For PCI, it uses DMA engine to transfer the SKBs to the device,
and the transition of the state of the DMA engine could be a cost.
Driver can save some time to kick off multiple SKBs once so that
the DMA engine will have only one transition.
So, split rtw_hci_ops::tx() to rtw_hci_ops::tx_write() and
rtw_hci_ops::tx_kick_off() to explicitly kick the SKBs off after
they are written to the prepared buffer. For packets come from
ieee80211_ops::tx(), write one and then kick it off immediately.
For packets queued in TX queue, which come from
ieee80211_ops::wake_tx_queue(), we can dequeue them, write them
to the buffer, and then kick them off together.
Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312080852.16684-6-yhchuang@realtek.com
Each device has only one reserved page shared with all of the
vifs, so it seems not reasonable to pass vif as one of the
arguments to rtw_fw_download_rsvd_page(). If driver is going
to run more than one vif, the content of reserved page could
not be built for all of the vifs.
To fix it, let each vif maintain its own reserved page list,
and build the final reserved page to download to the firmware
from all of the vifs. Hence driver should add reserved pages
to each vif according to the vif->type when adding the vif.
For station mode, add reserved page with rtw_add_rsvd_page_sta().
If the station mode is going to suspend in PNO (net-detect)
mode, remove the reserved pages used for normal mode, and add
new one for wowlan mode with rtw_add_rsvd_page_pno().
For beacon mode, only beacon is required to be added using
rtw_add_rsvd_page_bcn().
This would make the code flow simpler as we don't need to
add reserved pages when vif is running, just add/remove them
when ieee80211_ops::[add|remove]_interface.
When driver is going to download the reserved page, it will
collect pages from all of the vifs, this list is maintained
by rtwdev, with build_list as the pages' member. That way, we
can still build a list of reserved pages to be downloaded.
Also we can get the location of the pages from the list that
is maintained by rtwdev.
The biggest problem is that the first page should always be
beacon, if other type of reserved page is put in the first
page, the tx descriptor and offset could be wrong.
But station mode vif does not add beacon into its list, so
we need to add a dummy page in front of the list, to make
sure other pages will not be put in the first page. As the
dummy page is allocated when building the list, we must free
it before building a new list of reserved pages to firmware.
Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312080852.16684-4-yhchuang@realtek.com
Extract skb allocation routines for rsvd_page and h2c.
These routines should also be used by USB and SDIO.
This should not change the logic at all.
memset() for pkt_info is unnecessary, just declare as {0}.
Also skb_put()/memcpy() can be replaced by skb_put_data().
Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312080852.16684-3-yhchuang@realtek.com
This driver generally only needs to ensure that
(a) it doesn't try to process TX interrupts at the same time as
power-save operations (and similar)
(b) the device interrupt gets disabled while we're still handling the
last set of interrupts
For (a), all the operations (e.g., PS transitions, packet handling)
happens in non-atomic contexts (e.g., threaded IRQ).
For (b), we only need mutual exclusion for brief sections (i.e., while
we're actually manipulating the interrupt mask/status).
So, we can introduce a separate lock for handling (b), disabling IRQs
while we do it. For (a), we can demote the locking to BH only, now that
(b) (the only steps done in atomic context) and that has its own lock.
This helps reduce the amount of time this driver spends with IRQs off.
Notably, transitioning out of power-save modes can take >3 milliseconds,
and this transition is done under the protection of 'irq_lock'.
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200312080852.16684-2-yhchuang@realtek.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319230617.GA15035@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319230525.GA14835@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319225133.GA29672@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200319225002.GA28673@embeddedor.com
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305111401.GA25126@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305111216.GA24982@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225020804.GA9428@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225020413.GA8057@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011846.GA2773@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011709.GA601@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011415.GA31868@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225011151.GA30675@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225003408.GA28675@embeddedor
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200225002746.GA26789@embeddedor
mt76 patches for 5.7
* MT7663 support for the MT7615 driver
* USB fixes
* DBDC fixes for MT7615
* MT76x02 watchdog fixes
* Injection fix for MT7615
* Sensitivity fix for MT7615
* MCU support code cleanup
Introduce mt7615_mcu_uni_set_bss, mt7615_mcu_uni_set_dev and
mt7615_mcu_uni_set_beacon_offload uni mcu commands. This is a
preliminary patch to add mt7663e support
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Co-developed-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mcu uni command type. Uni commands rely on a stripped verions
of mt7615_mcu_txd data strutture. Split mt7615_mcu_txd_common and
mt7615_mcu_txd. Uni commands will be use by mt7663e driver
Co-developed-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_init_mac_chain routine to configure per band mac
register since new devices (e.g. mt7663e) do not support dbdc
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Introduce mt7615_eeprom_parse_hw_band_cap routine in order to configure
supported band for mt7663e and mt7622 devices since they do not rely on
eeprom data to enable 2GHz/5GHz bands
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Currently fw commands rely on negative cmds since they need different
mcu msg metadata. Extend this approach introducing MCU_FW_PREFIX.
This is a preliminary patch to support new mt7663e firmware commands
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Move mt7615_mcu_set_beacon_offload, mt7615_mcu_set_dev and
mt7615_mcu_set_bss routine in mt7615_mcu_ops data structure.
This is a preliminary patch to support mt7663 firmware
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Simplify mt7615_mcu_set_bss_info relying on mcu tlv helpers
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Rely on skb API and avoid kmalloc the buffer in mt7615_mcu_set_eeprom
routine
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
