lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: DM3730 Bluetooth Performance differences between SERIAL_8250_OMAP vs SERIAL_OMAP
Hi Adam,

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:39 PM Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:02 AM Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am running Kernel 5.3.2 trying to troubleshoot some intermittent
> > Bluetooth issues, and I think I have narrowed it down to the serial
> > driver in use.
>
> I should have also noted that it's using UART2 with CTS and RTS on the
> DM3730 (omap3630) and its configured with a baud rate of 3M.
> I tried slowing it to 115200, but that didn't help. I tried disabling
> the DMA hooks from the device tree, and that didn't help.
>
> > By default, omap2plus_defconfig enables both SERIAL_8250_OMAP and
> > SERIAL_OMAP. I have my console device configured as ttyS0, and all
> > appears fine. When I enable Bluetooth, however, I get intermittent
> > errors on an DM3730 / OMAP3630.
> >
> > Using the 8250 driver for Blueotooth I get intermittent frame errors
> > and data loss.
> >
> > Scanning ...
> > [ 28.482452] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84)
> > [ 36.162170] Bluetooth: hci0: Frame reassembly failed (-84)
> > F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 BluJax
> > # l2ping F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57
> > Ping: F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 from 00:18:30:49:7D:63 (data size 44) ...
> > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 0 time 8.27ms
> > no response from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57: id 1
> > ^C2 sent, 1 received, 50% loss
> >
> > (after a fairly long hang, I hit control-c)
> >
> > However, disabling the 8250 driver and using the only SERIAL_OMAP and
> > the console routed to ttyO0, the Bluetooth works well, so I believe it
> > to be a serial driver issue and not a Bluetooth error.
> >
> > # hcitool scan
> > Scanning ...
> > F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 BluJax
> > ^C
> > # l2ping F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57
> > Ping: F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 from 00:18:30:49:7D:63 (data size 44) ...
> > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 0 time 6.90ms
> > ...
> > 44 bytes from F4:4E:FC:C9:2F:57 id 14 time 28.29ms
> > ^C15 sent, 15 received, 0% loss
> > #
> >
> > 0% loss and regular, repeatable communication without any Frame
> > reassembly errors.
> >
>
> I tried disabling SERIAL_OMAP and using only SERIAL_8250_OMAP, but
> that didn't help. Because the issue goes away when I disable
> SERIAL_8250_OMAP, I am wondering if something is either being
> misconfigured or some IRQ or DMA integration is missing that may be
> present with the older SERIAL_OMAP driver.
>
> > Any suggestions on how to troubleshoot or what might cause the
> > difference between the two drivers?

Can it be related to this issue [1]? Can you confirm that 5.2 is
working as expected with the 8250 driver?

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-serial&m=156965039008649&w=2

Cheers,
Yegor

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-04 14:28    [W:0.078 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site