ACK / APPLIED[D/Unstable]: [PATCH 0/1][SRU][B][OEM-B][C][D]Power leakage at S5 with Qualcomm Atheros QCA9377 802.11ac Wireless Network Adapter

Seth Forshee seth.forshee at canonical.com
Mon Dec 10 20:30:51 UTC 2018


On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:18:38PM +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> 於 2018年12月5日 週三 下午9:52寫道:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:02:10PM +0800, AceLan Kao wrote:
> > > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1805607
> > >
> > > [Impact]
> > > It drains power more than 0.5 Watt after power off(S5) the machine with
> > > QCA9377 wifi card. The power consumption should be lower than 0.5 Watt,
> > > or it won't pass E-star 7.
> > >
> > > [Fix]
> > > Qualcomm provides this fix, and the power consumption becomes 0.23 Watt
> > > at S5. This fix doesn't submit to upstream yet, Qualcomm is still working
> > > on it.
> >
> > Can you elaborate? The fact that they are still working on it implies
> > that it isn't done. Can you explain what is still being worked on, and
> > why it's "good enough" in the current, imcomplete form?
> The code snip was given by Qualcomm to PM through email.
> We've asked them to submit the fix the upstream, but they didn't send it out.
> I have no idea why it takes so long, but to catch up the produce
> release schedule,
> I submit it to Ubuntu kernel first.
> 
> >
> > > [Test]
> > > Verified on Dell machines, it works.
> > >
> > > [Regression Potential]
> > > Low.
> >
> > Please explain why the regression potential is low.
> Sorry, I should provide below info in the beginning.
> It looks like Qualcomm forgot the provide a pci_soft_reset() function
> for QCA9377 chip,
> compare to others they all have pci_soft_reset function assigned.
> This commit provides ath10k_pci_warm_reset() as pci_soft_reset()
> function for QCA9377,
> and this function has been used for other chips as pci_soft_reset(),
> and compare the
> power consumption results, the chip has been disabled correctly after power off,
> so this function should work well for this chip, too.
> We've also done S3 and S5 tests, no regression.

Thanks.

Acked-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com>

Applied to disco/master-next and unstable/master, thanks!



More information about the kernel-team mailing list