| Message ID | 20241024002514.92290-3-quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | wifi: ath11k: support board-specific firmware overrides | expand |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no such limitation. Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to identify the RF part somehow? Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows world? > > For example: > > - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin, > ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/m3.bin: main firmware files, used by default > > - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/amss.bin, > ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/m3.bin This approach looks good to me, thank you. > > Tested-on: QCA6698AQ hw2.1 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-04402-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_IOE-1 > > Signed-off-by: Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h | 11 +++-------- > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c > index be67382c00f6..775e48551522 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c > @@ -1178,6 +1178,22 @@ static int ath11k_core_create_chip_id_board_name(struct ath11k_base *ab, char *n > ATH11K_BDF_NAME_CHIP_ID); > } > > +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, > + const char *filename, > + void *buf, size_t buf_len) > +{ const char *board_name = NULL; > + > + of_property_read_string(ab->dev->of_node, "firmware-name", &board_name); soc_name rather than board_name, please. Or just fw_name. > + > + if (board_name) > + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, > + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, board_name, filename); > + else > + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, > + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath11k_core_create_firmware_path); > + > const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, > const char *file) > { > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h > index 09c37e19a168..ce4102cfed4d 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h > @@ -1249,6 +1249,9 @@ bool ath11k_core_coldboot_cal_support(struct ath11k_base *ab); > > const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, > const char *filename); > +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, > + const char *filename, > + void *buf, size_t buf_len); > > static inline const char *ath11k_scan_state_str(enum ath11k_scan_state state) > { > @@ -1295,14 +1298,6 @@ static inline struct ath11k *ath11k_ab_to_ar(struct ath11k_base *ab, > return ab->pdevs[ath11k_hw_mac_id_to_pdev_id(&ab->hw_params, mac_id)].ar; > } > > -static inline void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, > - const char *filename, > - void *buf, size_t buf_len) > -{ > - snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, > - ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); It could have perfectly lived here. Is there any reason to move the function? > -} > - > static inline const char *ath11k_bus_str(enum ath11k_bus bus) > { > switch (bus) { > -- > 2.25.1 >
On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > > I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > such limitation. > > Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > identify the RF part somehow? It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for customized products. e.g. QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 QCA2066/hw2.1 WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 WCN6856/hw2.1 They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 platform which without DT files. So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 > > Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows > world? X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default main firmware files, as they without DT files. > >> >> For example: >> >> - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin, >> ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/m3.bin: main firmware files, used by default >> >> - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/amss.bin, >> ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/m3.bin > > This approach looks good to me, thank you. > >> >> Tested-on: QCA6698AQ hw2.1 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-04402-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_IOE-1 >> >> Signed-off-by: Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h | 11 +++-------- >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c >> index be67382c00f6..775e48551522 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c >> @@ -1178,6 +1178,22 @@ static int ath11k_core_create_chip_id_board_name(struct ath11k_base *ab, char *n >> ATH11K_BDF_NAME_CHIP_ID); >> } >> >> +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> + const char *filename, >> + void *buf, size_t buf_len) >> +{ const char *board_name = NULL; >> + >> + of_property_read_string(ab->dev->of_node, "firmware-name", &board_name); > > soc_name rather than board_name, please. Or just fw_name. Will update to 'fw_name'. > >> + >> + if (board_name) >> + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, >> + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, board_name, filename); >> + else >> + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, >> + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath11k_core_create_firmware_path); >> + >> const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> const char *file) >> { >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h >> index 09c37e19a168..ce4102cfed4d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h >> @@ -1249,6 +1249,9 @@ bool ath11k_core_coldboot_cal_support(struct ath11k_base *ab); >> >> const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> const char *filename); >> +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> + const char *filename, >> + void *buf, size_t buf_len); >> >> static inline const char *ath11k_scan_state_str(enum ath11k_scan_state state) >> { >> @@ -1295,14 +1298,6 @@ static inline struct ath11k *ath11k_ab_to_ar(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> return ab->pdevs[ath11k_hw_mac_id_to_pdev_id(&ab->hw_params, mac_id)].ar; >> } >> >> -static inline void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, >> - const char *filename, >> - void *buf, size_t buf_len) >> -{ >> - snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, >> - ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); > > It could have perfectly lived here. Is there any reason to move the > function? Will update. > >> -} >> - >> static inline const char *ath11k_bus_str(enum ath11k_bus bus) >> { >> switch (bus) { >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> >
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > > > IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > > > allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > > > used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > > > > I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > > subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > > which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > > would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > > firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > > limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > > such limitation. > > > > Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > > cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > > provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > > identify the RF part somehow? > > It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for > customized products. e.g. > > QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > QCA2066/hw2.1 > WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > WCN6856/hw2.1 > > They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all > QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and > longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 > platform which without DT files. I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both > attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends > on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network > Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) > Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] > Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 > > > > > > Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows > > world? > > X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default > main firmware files, as they without DT files. So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin, > > > ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/m3.bin: main firmware files, used by default > > > > > > - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/amss.bin, > > > ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/m3.bin > >
On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> >> >> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>> >>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the >>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, >>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers >>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since >>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is >>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no >>> such limitation. >>> >>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected >>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please >>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to >>> identify the RF part somehow? >> >> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for >> customized products. e.g. >> >> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >> QCA2066/hw2.1 >> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >> WCN6856/hw2.1 >> >> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all >> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and >> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 >> platform which without DT files. > > I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect > the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > >> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both >> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends >> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > > No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product > type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new > TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. Seems DT approach is only choice. Could you advice ? > >> 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network >> Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) >> Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] >> Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 >> >> >>> >>> Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows >>> world? >> >> X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default >> main firmware files, as they without DT files. > > So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module to do power up. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin, >>>> ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/m3.bin: main firmware files, used by default >>>> >>>> - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/amss.bin, >>>> ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/m3.bin >>> >
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > >>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > >>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > >>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > >>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > >>> > >>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > >>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > >>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > >>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > >>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > >>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > >>> such limitation. > >>> > >>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > >>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > >>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > >>> identify the RF part somehow? > >> > >> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for > >> customized products. e.g. > >> > >> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > >> QCA2066/hw2.1 > >> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > >> WCN6856/hw2.1 > >> > >> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > >> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all > >> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and > >> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 > >> platform which without DT files. > > > > I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect > > the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > > > >> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both > >> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > >> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends > >> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > > > > No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product > > type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > > following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new > > TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > > Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw > revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. How is it so? And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. > We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT > platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also > new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. > Seems DT approach is only choice. > > Could you advice ? Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? What exactly is different? What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) M.2 card into their IoT device? > > > >> 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network > >> Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) > >> Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] > >> Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows > >>> world? > >> > >> X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default > >> main firmware files, as they without DT files. > > > > So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? > > No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module > to do power up. You are describing software (power sequencing module), while I was talking about the hardware. Nothing prevents OEM from adding fixed regulators to drive necessary voltages from the PCIe slot.
On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>> >>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the >>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, >>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers >>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since >>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is >>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no >>>>> such limitation. >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected >>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please >>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to >>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>> >>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for >>>> customized products. e.g. >>>> >>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>> >>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all >>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and >>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 >>>> platform which without DT files. >>> >>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect >>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>> >>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both >>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends >>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>> >>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product >>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new >>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >> >> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. > > How is it so? I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. > > And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors > handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is > a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the > analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. > >> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT >> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also >> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. >> Seems DT approach is only choice. >> >> Could you advice ? > > Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? > What exactly is different? Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) > M.2 card into their IoT device? If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. > >>> >>>> 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network >>>> Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) >>>> Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] >>>> Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows >>>>> world? >>>> >>>> X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default >>>> main firmware files, as they without DT files. >>> >>> So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? >> >> No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module >> to do power up. > > You are describing software (power sequencing module), while I was > talking about the hardware. Nothing prevents OEM from adding fixed > regulators to drive necessary voltages from the PCIe slot. >
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > >>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > >>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > >>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > >>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > >>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > >>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > >>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > >>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > >>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > >>>>> such limitation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > >>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > >>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > >>>>> identify the RF part somehow? > >>>> > >>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for > >>>> customized products. e.g. > >>>> > >>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > >>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 > >>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > >>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 > >>>> > >>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > >>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all > >>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and > >>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 > >>>> platform which without DT files. > >>> > >>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect > >>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > >>> > >>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both > >>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > >>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends > >>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > >>> > >>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product > >>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > >>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new > >>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > >> > >> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw > >> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. > > > > How is it so? > > I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip > manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? > > > > > And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors > > handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is > > a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the > > analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. > > > > > >> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT > >> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also > >> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. > >> Seems DT approach is only choice. > >> > >> Could you advice ? > > > > Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? > > What exactly is different? > > Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new > features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. > > What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) > > M.2 card into their IoT device? > > If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the > default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? > > > > > >>> > >>>> 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network > >>>> Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) > >>>> Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] > >>>> Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows > >>>>> world? > >>>> > >>>> X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default > >>>> main firmware files, as they without DT files. > >>> > >>> So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? > >> > >> No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module > >> to do power up. > > > > You are describing software (power sequencing module), while I was > > talking about the hardware. Nothing prevents OEM from adding fixed > > regulators to drive necessary voltages from the PCIe slot. > > >
On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >>>>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >>>>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >>>>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the >>>>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, >>>>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers >>>>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since >>>>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is >>>>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no >>>>>>> such limitation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected >>>>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please >>>>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to >>>>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for >>>>>> customized products. e.g. >>>>>> >>>>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all >>>>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and >>>>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 >>>>>> platform which without DT files. >>>>> >>>>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect >>>>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>>>> >>>>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both >>>>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends >>>>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>>>> >>>>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product >>>>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>>>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new >>>>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >>>> >>>> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >>>> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. >>> >>> How is it so? >> >> I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip >> manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. > > Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't have enough samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing devices. > >> >>> >>> And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors >>> handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is >>> a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the >>> analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. >> >> >>> >>>> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT >>>> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also >>>> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. >>>> Seems DT approach is only choice. >>>> >>>> Could you advice ? >>> >>> Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? >>> What exactly is different? >> >> Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new >> features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. >> >> What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) >>> M.2 card into their IoT device? >> >> If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the >> default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. > > Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware version, also it's not allowed. > >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network >>>>>> Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) >>>>>> Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] >>>>>> Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows >>>>>>> world? >>>>>> >>>>>> X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default >>>>>> main firmware files, as they without DT files. >>>>> >>>>> So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? >>>> >>>> No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module >>>> to do power up. >>> >>> You are describing software (power sequencing module), while I was >>> talking about the hardware. Nothing prevents OEM from adding fixed >>> regulators to drive necessary voltages from the PCIe slot. >>> >> > >
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > > > > > > > > > IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > > > > > > > > > allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > > > > > > > > > used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > > > > > > > > subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > > > > > > > > which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > > > > > > > > would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > > > > > > > > firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > > > > > > > > limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > > > > > > > > such limitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > > > > > > > > cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > > > > > > > > provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > > > > > > > > identify the RF part somehow? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for > > > > > > > customized products. e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > > > > > > > QCA2066/hw2.1 > > > > > > > WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > > > > > > > WCN6856/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > > > > > > > ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all > > > > > > > QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and > > > > > > > longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 > > > > > > > platform which without DT files. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect > > > > > > the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both > > > > > > > attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > > > > > > > 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends > > > > > > > on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > > > > > > > > > > > > No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product > > > > > > type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > > > > > > following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new > > > > > > TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw > > > > > revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. > > > > > > > > How is it so? > > > > > > I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip > > > manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. > > > > Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? > > The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't have enough > samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing devices. What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who enumerates subdevices. I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. Especially if the user is able to swap cards. > > > > And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors > > > > handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is > > > > a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the > > > > analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT > > > > > platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also > > > > > new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. > > > > > Seems DT approach is only choice. > > > > > > > > > > Could you advice ? > > > > > > > > Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? > > > > What exactly is different? > > > > > > Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new > > > features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. > > > > > > What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) > > > > M.2 card into their IoT device? > > > > > > If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the > > > default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. > > > > Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? > > It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware > version, also it's not allowed. If it's not allowed for laptop cards, why is it allowed for IoT M.2 cards (which then can be perfectly installed into the laptop)? > > > > > > > 0000:01:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network > > > > > > > Adapter [17cb:1103] (rev 01) > > > > > > > Subsystem: Qualcomm QCNFA765 Wireless Network Adapter [17cb:0108] > > > > > > > Device tree node: /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/pci@1c00000/pcie@0/wifi@0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you possibly clarify, how this situation is handled in Windows > > > > > > > > world? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X86 platforms use standard m.2 PCIe card, and it will only use the default > > > > > > > main firmware files, as they without DT files. > > > > > > > > > > > > So QCA6698AQ cannot appear on an M.2 PCIe card? > > > > > > > > > > No, but no m.2 PCIe card so far. It depends on power sequencing module > > > > > to do power up. > > > > > > > > You are describing software (power sequencing module), while I was > > > > talking about the hardware. Nothing prevents OEM from adding fixed > > > > regulators to drive necessary voltages from the PCIe slot.
On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> >> >> On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >>>>>>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >>>>>>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >>>>>>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the >>>>>>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, >>>>>>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers >>>>>>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since >>>>>>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is >>>>>>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no >>>>>>>>> such limitation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected >>>>>>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please >>>>>>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to >>>>>>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for >>>>>>>> customized products. e.g. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>>>>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>>>>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>>>>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>>>>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all >>>>>>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and >>>>>>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 >>>>>>>> platform which without DT files. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect >>>>>>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both >>>>>>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>>>>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends >>>>>>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product >>>>>>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>>>>>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new >>>>>>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >>>>>> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. >>>>> >>>>> How is it so? >>>> >>>> I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip >>>> manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. >>> >>> Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? >> >> The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't have enough >> samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing devices. > > What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who > enumerates subdevices. It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. Subdevice is never used by ath1xk drivers. > > I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. > Especially if the user is able to swap cards. Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best choice. But it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is customized, which has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power sequencing module was introduced. > >>>>> And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors >>>>> handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is >>>>> a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the >>>>> analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT >>>>>> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also >>>>>> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. >>>>>> Seems DT approach is only choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you advice ? >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? >>>>> What exactly is different? >>>> >>>> Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new >>>> features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. >>>> >>>> What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) >>>>> M.2 card into their IoT device? >>>> >>>> If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the >>>> default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. >>> >>> Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? >> >> It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware >> version, also it's not allowed. > > If it's not allowed for laptop cards, why is it allowed for IoT M.2 > cards (which then can be perfectly installed into the laptop)? > Only specific IoT M.2 cards.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:45PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, > > > > > > > > > > > IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change > > > > > > > > > > > allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory > > > > > > > > > > > used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the > > > > > > > > > > subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, > > > > > > > > > > which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers > > > > > > > > > > would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since > > > > > > > > > > firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is > > > > > > > > > > limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no > > > > > > > > > > such limitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected > > > > > > > > > > cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please > > > > > > > > > > provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to > > > > > > > > > > identify the RF part somehow? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for > > > > > > > > > customized products. e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > QCA2066/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > WCN6856/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > > > > > > > > > ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all > > > > > > > > > QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and > > > > > > > > > longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 > > > > > > > > > platform which without DT files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect > > > > > > > > the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both > > > > > > > > > attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > > > > > > > > > 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends > > > > > > > > > on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product > > > > > > > > type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > > > > > > > > following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new > > > > > > > > TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw > > > > > > > revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is it so? > > > > > > > > > > I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip > > > > > manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. > > > > > > > > Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? > > > > > > The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't have enough > > > samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing devices. > > > > What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who > > enumerates subdevices. > > It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. Subdevice is never > used by ath1xk drivers. Oh, so it's just about development. I'd say, please discuss such risks with your management, unless Kalle or Jeff disagree with using the subdevice for identification. > > > > > I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. > > Especially if the user is able to swap cards. > > Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best choice. But > it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is customized, which > has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power > sequencing module was introduced. I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for autodiscoverable devices. > > > > > > > > > And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors > > > > > > handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is > > > > > > a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the > > > > > > analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT > > > > > > > platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also > > > > > > > new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. > > > > > > > Seems DT approach is only choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you advice ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? > > > > > > What exactly is different? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new > > > > > features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. > > > > > > > > > > What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) > > > > > > M.2 card into their IoT device? > > > > > > > > > > If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the > > > > > default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. > > > > > > > > Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? > > > > > > It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware > > > version, also it's not allowed. > > > > If it's not allowed for laptop cards, why is it allowed for IoT M.2 > > cards (which then can be perfectly installed into the laptop)? > > > > Only specific IoT M.2 cards. But they are (or are going to be available) for purchase? And more importantly, what prevents the user of a normal card to use "featureful" firmware with the laptop card?
On 10/25/2024 11:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:45PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> >> >> On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, >>>>>>>>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change >>>>>>>>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory >>>>>>>>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files overriding the >>>>>>>>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board firmware sets, >>>>>>>>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver maintainers >>>>>>>>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc devices, since >>>>>>>>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys and it is >>>>>>>>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci there is no >>>>>>>>>>> such limitation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to identify affected >>>>>>>>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? Please >>>>>>>>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a way to >>>>>>>>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple evolved subseries for >>>>>>>>>> customized products. e.g. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>>>>>>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate all >>>>>>>>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will become longer and >>>>>>>>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's customized for X86 >>>>>>>>>> platform which without DT files. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to detect >>>>>>>>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/QCS8300-RIDE both >>>>>>>>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>>>>>>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board firmware, it depends >>>>>>>>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the product >>>>>>>>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>>>>>>>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could use new >>>>>>>>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >>>>>>>> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How is it so? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches of chip >>>>>> manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. >>>>> >>>>> Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? >>>> >>>> The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't have enough >>>> samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing devices. >>> >>> What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who >>> enumerates subdevices. >> >> It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. Subdevice is never >> used by ath1xk drivers. > > Oh, so it's just about development. I'd say, please discuss such risks > with your management, unless Kalle or Jeff disagree with using the > subdevice for identification. Kalle & Jeff, any idea to introduce subdevice ? > >> >>> >>> I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. >>> Especially if the user is able to swap cards. >> >> Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best choice. But >> it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is customized, which >> has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power >> sequencing module was introduced. > > I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for > autodiscoverable devices. > >> >>> >>>>>>> And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how vendors >>>>>>> handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? This is >>>>>>> a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the >>>>>>> analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card for IoT >>>>>>>> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, so also >>>>>>>> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not works. >>>>>>>> Seems DT approach is only choice. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you advice ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature sets? >>>>>>> What exactly is different? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and etc new >>>>>> features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. >>>>>> >>>>>> What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) >>>>>>> M.2 card into their IoT device? >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will load the >>>>>> default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. >>>>> >>>>> Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? >>>> >>>> It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware >>>> version, also it's not allowed. >>> >>> If it's not allowed for laptop cards, why is it allowed for IoT M.2 >>> cards (which then can be perfectly installed into the laptop)? >>> >> >> Only specific IoT M.2 cards. > > But they are (or are going to be available) for purchase? And more > importantly, what prevents the user of a normal card to use "featureful" > firmware with the laptop card? > We can't prevent the user to use 'featureful' firmware, but it's not fully tested on the x86 platform, they need to bear the risk of instability.
On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > On 10/25/2024 11:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:45PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan >>>>>> <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan >>>>>>>> <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has >>>>>>>>>>>>> different RF, >>>>>>>>>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This change >>>>>>>>>>>>> allows board DT files to override the subdir of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> firmware directory >>>>>>>>>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have slight concerns regarding the _board_ DT files >>>>>>>>>>>> overriding the >>>>>>>>>>>> subdir. This opens a can of worms, allowing per-board >>>>>>>>>>>> firmware sets, >>>>>>>>>>>> which (as far as I understand) is far from being what driver >>>>>>>>>>>> maintainers >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to see. This was required for ath10k-snoc >>>>>>>>>>>> devices, since >>>>>>>>>>>> firmware for those platforms is signed by the vendor keys >>>>>>>>>>>> and it is >>>>>>>>>>>> limited to a particular SoC or SoC family. For ath11k-pci >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no >>>>>>>>>>>> such limitation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to use PCI subvendor / subdev to >>>>>>>>>>>> identify affected >>>>>>>>>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any other way to identify the device? >>>>>>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the affected device kind. Is there a >>>>>>>>>>>> way to >>>>>>>>>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's rather difficult, for WCN685x, there are multiple >>>>>>>>>>> evolved subseries for >>>>>>>>>>> customized products. e.g. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They have the same PCIe ID (17cb:1103), the commit >>>>>>>>>>> 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>>>>>>>>> ath11k: add support for QCA2066") reads TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER >>>>>>>>>>> to enumerate all >>>>>>>>>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of flexibility, as the list will >>>>>>>>>>> become longer and >>>>>>>>>>> longer. But it's the only choice for QCA2066, as it's >>>>>>>>>>> customized for X86 >>>>>>>>>>> platform which without DT files. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's expectations: being able to >>>>>>>>>> detect >>>>>>>>>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So for MSM those have DT file platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/ >>>>>>>>>>> QCS8300-RIDE both >>>>>>>>>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>>>>>>>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', so it's not per-board >>>>>>>>>>> firmware, it depends >>>>>>>>>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used must not be specific to the >>>>>>>>>> product >>>>>>>>>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>>>>>>>>> following the QCA2066 approach instead. And note that it could >>>>>>>>>> use new >>>>>>>>>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >>>>>>>>> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How is it so? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. Different batches >>>>>>> of chip >>>>>>> manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? >>>>> >>>>> The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And I don't >>>>> have enough >>>>> samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for existing >>>>> devices. >>>> >>>> What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who >>>> enumerates subdevices. >>> >>> It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. Subdevice is >>> never >>> used by ath1xk drivers. >> >> Oh, so it's just about development. I'd say, please discuss such risks >> with your management, unless Kalle or Jeff disagree with using the >> subdevice for identification. > > Kalle & Jeff, any idea to introduce subdevice ? > > Whether 'QCA2066 approach' or 'subdevice approach', all need to introduce lots of redundant code, as they share the same IP code. 'DT approach' only needs minor change, brings great flexibility. It's only for Snapdragon boards, will not affect default firmware for X86 platforms. >> >>> >>>> >>>> I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. >>>> Especially if the user is able to swap cards. >>> >>> Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best >>> choice. But >>> it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is >>> customized, which >>> has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power >>> sequencing module was introduced. >> >> I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for >> autodiscoverable devices. > We discussed internally, we have no other choice to enable NFA765 for non X86 boards. Could you please approve this 'DT' approach ? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> And if it is hard, can we please get to the _normal_ way how >>>>>>>> vendors >>>>>>>> handle PCI hardware differences: the subvendor and subdevice? >>>>>>>> This is >>>>>>>> a usual way to describe that the PCIe device is the same, but the >>>>>>>> analog / tuner / RF / etc parts are different. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We're going to have another problem to enable NFA765 m.2 card >>>>>>>>> for IoT >>>>>>>>> platforms, which has different feature sets with X86 platform, >>>>>>>>> so also >>>>>>>>> new firmware should be used. In this case, QCA2066 approach not >>>>>>>>> works. >>>>>>>>> Seems DT approach is only choice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you advice ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm, The first question is _why_ does it have different feature >>>>>>>> sets? >>>>>>>> What exactly is different? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah, for IoT device will support SAP/TWT/UL-OFDMA/BSS color and >>>>>>> etc new >>>>>>> features, and the existing x86 firmware mainly for STA mode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if the user plugs a normal (laptop) >>>>>>>> M.2 card into their IoT device? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there is no DT file to specify the firmware, IoT device will >>>>>>> load the >>>>>>> default firmware, it will affect SAP and WiFi-6 advanced features. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can we get all those nice features into x86 world instead? >>>>> >>>>> It's out of our scope, we will not touch the existing stable firmware >>>>> version, also it's not allowed. >>>> >>>> If it's not allowed for laptop cards, why is it allowed for IoT M.2 >>>> cards (which then can be perfectly installed into the laptop)? >>>> >>> >>> Only specific IoT M.2 cards. >> >> But they are (or are going to be available) for purchase? And more >> importantly, what prevents the user of a normal card to use "featureful" >> firmware with the laptop card? >> > > We can't prevent the user to use 'featureful' firmware, but it's not > fully tested on the x86 platform, they need to bear the risk of > instability. > > >
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 06:32:58PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 11:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:45PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan > > > > > > > <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan > > > > > > > > > <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ IP core is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same as WCN6855 hw2.1, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it has different RF, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IPA, thermal, RAM size > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and etc, so new firmware > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files used. This change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows board DT files to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > override the subdir of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the firmware directory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have slight concerns > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding the _board_ DT > > > > > > > > > > > > > files overriding the > > > > > > > > > > > > > subdir. This opens a can of > > > > > > > > > > > > > worms, allowing per-board > > > > > > > > > > > > > firmware sets, > > > > > > > > > > > > > which (as far as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand) is far from > > > > > > > > > > > > > being what driver > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintainers > > > > > > > > > > > > > would like to see. This was > > > > > > > > > > > > > required for ath10k-snoc > > > > > > > > > > > > > devices, since > > > > > > > > > > > > > firmware for those platforms > > > > > > > > > > > > > is signed by the vendor keys > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > limited to a particular SoC > > > > > > > > > > > > > or SoC family. For > > > > > > > > > > > > > ath11k-pci there is no > > > > > > > > > > > > > such limitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to use > > > > > > > > > > > > > PCI subvendor / subdev to > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify affected > > > > > > > > > > > > > cards? PCI Revision? Any > > > > > > > > > > > > > other way to identify the > > > > > > > > > > > > > device? Please > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide lspci -nnvv for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > affected device kind. Is > > > > > > > > > > > > > there a way to > > > > > > > > > > > > > identify the RF part somehow? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's rather difficult, for > > > > > > > > > > > > WCN685x, there are multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > evolved subseries for > > > > > > > > > > > > customized products. e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA2066/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > WCN6856/hw2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have the same PCIe ID > > > > > > > > > > > > (17cb:1103), the commit > > > > > > > > > > > > 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: > > > > > > > > > > > > ath11k: add support for > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA2066") reads > > > > > > > > > > > > TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > QCA2066 cards, it lacks of > > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility, as the list will > > > > > > > > > > > > become longer and > > > > > > > > > > > > longer. But it's the only choice > > > > > > > > > > > > for QCA2066, as it's customized > > > > > > > > > > > > for X86 > > > > > > > > > > > > platform which without DT files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess, this is closer to Kalle's > > > > > > > > > > > expectations: being able to detect > > > > > > > > > > > the hardware instead of adding DT properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for MSM those have DT file > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/ > > > > > > > > > > > > QCS8300-RIDE both > > > > > > > > > > > > attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to > > > > > > > > > > > > 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', > > > > > > > > > > > > so it's not per-board firmware, > > > > > > > > > > > > it depends > > > > > > > > > > > > on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No-no-no and no. The firmware used > > > > > > > > > > > must not be specific to the product > > > > > > > > > > > type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try > > > > > > > > > > > following the QCA2066 approach > > > > > > > > > > > instead. And note that it could use > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw > > > > > > > > > > revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is it so? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. > > > > > > > > Different batches of chip > > > > > > > > manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And > > > > > > I don't have enough > > > > > > samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for > > > > > > existing devices. > > > > > > > > > > What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who > > > > > enumerates subdevices. > > > > > > > > It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. > > > > Subdevice is never > > > > used by ath1xk drivers. > > > > > > Oh, so it's just about development. I'd say, please discuss such risks > > > with your management, unless Kalle or Jeff disagree with using the > > > subdevice for identification. > > > > Kalle & Jeff, any idea to introduce subdevice ? > > > > > > Whether 'QCA2066 approach' or 'subdevice approach', all need to introduce > lots of redundant code, as they share the same IP code. > > 'DT approach' only needs minor change, brings great flexibility. It's only > for Snapdragon boards, will not affect default firmware for X86 platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. > > > > > Especially if the user is able to swap cards. > > > > > > > > Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best > > > > choice. But > > > > it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is > > > > customized, which > > > > has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power > > > > sequencing module was introduced. > > > > > > I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for > > > autodiscoverable devices. > > > > We discussed internally, we have no other choice to enable NFA765 for non > X86 boards. Could you please approve this 'DT' approach ? If you can't use subdevice approach for some reason, then we have no other choice that I can imagine.
On 10/28/2024 9:45 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 06:32:58PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >> >> >> On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/25/2024 11:27 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:23:45PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/25/2024 10:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 09:43:04PM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 8:21 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 15:03, Miaoqing Pan >>>>>>>> <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 6:20 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 10:23, Miaoqing Pan >>>>>>>>>> <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 2:01 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:56:02AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/2024 3:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:25:14AM +0800, Miaoqing Pan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ IP core is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as WCN6855 hw2.1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it has different RF, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPA, thermal, RAM size >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and etc, so new firmware >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files used. This change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows board DT files to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> override the subdir of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the firmware directory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have slight concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the _board_ DT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> files overriding the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subdir. This opens a can of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worms, allowing per-board >>>>>>>>>>>>>> firmware sets, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which (as far as I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand) is far from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being what driver >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintainers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to see. This was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> required for ath10k-snoc >>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>> firmware for those platforms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is signed by the vendor keys >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to a particular SoC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or SoC family. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ath11k-pci there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such limitation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCI subvendor / subdev to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identify affected >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cards? PCI Revision? Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other way to identify the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> device? Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide lspci -nnvv for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affected device kind. Is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there a way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> identify the RF part somehow? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's rather difficult, for >>>>>>>>>>>>> WCN685x, there are multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved subseries for >>>>>>>>>>>>> customized products. e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA6698AQ/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA2066/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> WCN6855/hw2.0/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> WCN6856/hw2.1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They have the same PCIe ID >>>>>>>>>>>>> (17cb:1103), the commit >>>>>>>>>>>>> 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ath11k: add support for >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA2066") reads >>>>>>>>>>>>> TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER to enumerate >>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCA2066 cards, it lacks of >>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility, as the list will >>>>>>>>>>>>> become longer and >>>>>>>>>>>>> longer. But it's the only choice >>>>>>>>>>>>> for QCA2066, as it's customized >>>>>>>>>>>>> for X86 >>>>>>>>>>>>> platform which without DT files. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess, this is closer to Kalle's >>>>>>>>>>>> expectations: being able to detect >>>>>>>>>>>> the hardware instead of adding DT properties. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So for MSM those have DT file >>>>>>>>>>>>> platforms, like SA8775P-RIDE/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> QCS8300-RIDE both >>>>>>>>>>>>> attached to QCA6698AQ, we can specify the correct firmware to >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq', >>>>>>>>>>>>> so it's not per-board firmware, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it depends >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the type of the products(x86 windows, IoT products or AUTO). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No-no-no and no. The firmware used >>>>>>>>>>>> must not be specific to the product >>>>>>>>>>>> type. This is what everybody here is trying to avoid. Please try >>>>>>>>>>>> following the QCA2066 approach >>>>>>>>>>>> instead. And note that it could use >>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>> TLD as it perfectly shows itself as a different hardware kind. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually, TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER is not SOC register, it's a TLMM hw >>>>>>>>>>> revision register in BAR0 space, it's hard to maintain the list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How is it so? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think QCA2066 approach is just a workaround. >>>>>>>>> Different batches of chip >>>>>>>>> manufacture has different value in TCSR_SOC_HW_SUB_VER. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok. So, subvendor / subdevice? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The 'subvendor' is fixed to 0x17cb, so it's useless. And >>>>>>> I don't have enough >>>>>>> samples to decide to use 'subdevice', it's a risk for >>>>>>> existing devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> What kind of risk? If subvendor is fixed, then it's Qualcomm who >>>>>> enumerates subdevices. >>>>> >>>>> It's risk for there is not enough sample card to verify. >>>>> Subdevice is never >>>>> used by ath1xk drivers. >>>> >>>> Oh, so it's just about development. I'd say, please discuss such risks >>>> with your management, unless Kalle or Jeff disagree with using the >>>> subdevice for identification. >>> >>> Kalle & Jeff, any idea to introduce subdevice ? >>> >>> >> >> Whether 'QCA2066 approach' or 'subdevice approach', all need to introduce >> lots of redundant code, as they share the same IP code. >> >> 'DT approach' only needs minor change, brings great flexibility. It's only >> for Snapdragon boards, will not affect default firmware for X86 platforms. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm really reluctant to bringing more DT usage into the PCIe space. >>>>>> Especially if the user is able to swap cards. >>>>> >>>>> Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best >>>>> choice. But >>>>> it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is >>>>> customized, which >>>>> has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power >>>>> sequencing module was introduced. >>>> >>>> I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for >>>> autodiscoverable devices. >>> >> >> We discussed internally, we have no other choice to enable NFA765 for non >> X86 boards. Could you please approve this 'DT' approach ? > > If you can't use subdevice approach for some reason, then we have no > other choice that I can imagine. > A new patch was submitted: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20241031000541.3331606-1-quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com/. This patch will add QCA6698AQ support, which follows the approach done in commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: ath11k: add support for QCA2066"), enumerates the subversion number to identify the specific card. But there is still a problem enabling NFA765 m.2 card for IoT platforms, which requires ath11k to support board-specific firmware overrides.
Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> writes: >>>>>> Understand your concern, automatic adaptation is always the best >>>>>> choice. But >>>>>> it may not work for MSM boards, the PCIe card (non m.2) is >>>>>> customized, which >>>>>> has special PMU control. User can't swap cards. And that's why power >>>>>> sequencing module was introduced. >>>>> >>>>> I know. Still, it's better to have less unnecessary data there for >>>>> autodiscoverable devices. >>>> >>> >>> We discussed internally, we have no other choice to enable NFA765 for non >>> X86 boards. Could you please approve this 'DT' approach ? >> If you can't use subdevice approach for some reason, then we have no >> other choice that I can imagine. >> > > A new patch was submitted: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20241031000541.3331606-1-quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com/. > This patch will add QCA6698AQ support, which follows the approach done > in commit 5dc9d1a55e95 ("wifi: ath11k: add support for QCA2066"), > enumerates the subversion number to identify the specific card. > > But there is still a problem enabling NFA765 m.2 card for IoT > platforms, which requires ath11k to support board-specific firmware > overrides. So there are multiple different hardware you want to support? This is very confusing and the commit message does not really tell anything about those. Can you list _all_ the hardware you want to support and what firmware it needs?
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c index be67382c00f6..775e48551522 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c @@ -1178,6 +1178,22 @@ static int ath11k_core_create_chip_id_board_name(struct ath11k_base *ab, char *n ATH11K_BDF_NAME_CHIP_ID); } +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, + const char *filename, + void *buf, size_t buf_len) +{ const char *board_name = NULL; + + of_property_read_string(ab->dev->of_node, "firmware-name", &board_name); + + if (board_name) + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, board_name, filename); + else + snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, + ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ath11k_core_create_firmware_path); + const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, const char *file) { diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h index 09c37e19a168..ce4102cfed4d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h @@ -1249,6 +1249,9 @@ bool ath11k_core_coldboot_cal_support(struct ath11k_base *ab); const struct firmware *ath11k_core_firmware_request(struct ath11k_base *ab, const char *filename); +void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, + const char *filename, + void *buf, size_t buf_len); static inline const char *ath11k_scan_state_str(enum ath11k_scan_state state) { @@ -1295,14 +1298,6 @@ static inline struct ath11k *ath11k_ab_to_ar(struct ath11k_base *ab, return ab->pdevs[ath11k_hw_mac_id_to_pdev_id(&ab->hw_params, mac_id)].ar; } -static inline void ath11k_core_create_firmware_path(struct ath11k_base *ab, - const char *filename, - void *buf, size_t buf_len) -{ - snprintf(buf, buf_len, "%s/%s/%s", ATH11K_FW_DIR, - ab->hw_params.fw.dir, filename); -} - static inline const char *ath11k_bus_str(enum ath11k_bus bus) { switch (bus) {
QCA6698AQ IP core is the same as WCN6855 hw2.1, but it has different RF, IPA, thermal, RAM size and etc, so new firmware files used. This change allows board DT files to override the subdir of the firmware directory used to lookup the amss.bin and m3.bin. For example: - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin, ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/m3.bin: main firmware files, used by default - ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/amss.bin, ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/qca6698aq/m3.bin Tested-on: QCA6698AQ hw2.1 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-04402-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_IOE-1 Signed-off-by: Miaoqing Pan <quic_miaoqing@quicinc.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/core.h | 11 +++-------- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)