Re: [PATCH 1/1] hso: fix problem with wrong status code sent by OPTION GTM601 during RING indication

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Dan,

Am 17.12.2013 um 23:27 schrieb Dan Williams:

> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 20:56 +0100, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> Hi Dan,
>> 
>> Am 16.12.2013 um 20:40 schrieb Dan Williams:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:43 +0100, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Am 02.10.2013 um 09:00 schrieb Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> we are using a GTM601 modem (Firmware 1.7) for a while and have spotted an
>>>>> issue that under some conditions the modem sends a packed wIndex over USB
>>>>> that is rejected by the hso driver making troubles afterwards. Not rejecting makes
>>>>> it work fine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> Nikolaus Schaller
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 
>>>>> From f5c7e15b61f2ce4fe3105ff914f6bfaf5d74af0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>> From: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:40:57 +0100
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] hso: fix problem with wrong status code sent by OPTION
>>>>> GTM601 during RING indication
>>>>> 
>>>>> It has been observed that the GTM601 with 1.7 firmware sometimes sends a value
>>>>> wIndex that has bit 0x04 set instead of being reset as the code expects. So we
>>>>> mask it for the error check.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See http://lists.goldelico.com/pipermail/gta04-owner/2012-February/001643.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/net/usb/hso.c |    3 ++-
>>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>>>>> index cba1d46..d146e26 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>>>>> @@ -1503,7 +1503,8 @@ static void tiocmget_intr_callback(struct urb *urb)
>>>>> 	if (serial_state_notification->bmRequestType != BM_REQUEST_TYPE ||
>>>>> 	    serial_state_notification->bNotification != B_NOTIFICATION ||
>>>>> 	    le16_to_cpu(serial_state_notification->wValue) != W_VALUE ||
>>>>> -	    le16_to_cpu(serial_state_notification->wIndex) != W_INDEX ||
>>>>> +	    (le16_to_cpu(serial_state_notification->wIndex) & ~0x4) !=
>>>>> +		W_INDEX ||
>>>>> 	    le16_to_cpu(serial_state_notification->wLength) != W_LENGTH) {
>>>>> 		dev_warn(&usb->dev,
>>>>> 			 "hso received invalid serial state notification\n");
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 1.7.7.4
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I have found this (better) proposal by OPTION, but wonder what did happen to it.
>>>> It neither shows in mainline 3.13-rc nor linux-next:
>>>> 
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/9/263
>>> 
>>> Likely because nobody formally submitted the patch with a signed-off-by,
>>> which indicates their intent that the patch is tested, correct, and can
>>> be merged to the kernel.
>> 
>> Ok, I see. I just wasn't aware of the proposal at all since I missed the discussion
>> and wasn't on CC.
>> 
>> Therefore I have added Eric to the CC.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I looked at this today, and I'm left wondering how any port other than
>>> HSO_PORT_MODEM can get the notification via tiocmget_intr_callback().
>>> "serial->tiocmget" is only created for HSO_PORT_MODEM serial ports (see
>>> hso_create_bulk_serial_device()):
>>> 
>>> 	if ((port & HSO_PORT_MASK) == HSO_PORT_MODEM) {
>>> 		num_urbs = 2;
>>> 		serial->tiocmget = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hso_tiocmget),
>>> 					   GFP_KERNEL);
>>> 
>>> and the code in tiocmget_intr_callback() does this:
>>> 
>>> 	tiocmget = serial->tiocmget;
>>> 	if (!tiocmget)
>>> 		return;
>>> 
>>> which should mean that only a HSO_PORT_MODEM will ever process the
>>> notification.  Further, the tiocmget interrupt URB is only created and
>>> submitted if serial->tiocmget != NULL, so only HSO_PORT_MODEM should
>>> ever be calling into tiocmget_intr_callback().
>> 
>> Ok, that looks plausible.
>> 
>>> 
>>> So I think Eric's patch is actually wrong because it will *always* pass
>>> the new check.
>>> 
>>> The original code had the correct intention, but the original code was
>>> obviously wrong for newer devices where the port layout is read from
>>> firmware and not from static tables, and thus for recent devices where
>>> the modem interface is not USB interface #2.
>> 
>> This explains why we did run into the problem with the GTM601.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Can you confirm/deny that the 'modem' interface for your GTM601 is USB
>>> interface #6?  For example, my Icon 452 has the following USB interface
>>> layout:
>>> 
>>> 0: Diag
>>> 1: GPS
>>> 2: GPS control
>>> 3: Application
>>> 4: Control
>>> 5: Network
>>> 6: Modem
>>> 
>>> So like the GTM601, I would expect any RING notifications to appear for
>>> wIndex=0x06.
>> 
>> Interestingly I see:
>> 
>> 0: Diagnostic
>> 1: GPS
>> 2: GPS Control
>> 3: Application
>> 4: Control
>> 5: Modem
>> 
>> I.e. there is no Network interface. Originally we did focus on /dev/ttyHS3
> 
> How are you determining the number here?  Are you using:
> 
> cat /sys/class/tty/ttyHS_Modem/device/bInterfaceNumber
> 
> to determine the actual USB interface number associated with the Modem
> port?  Or are you going off the pre-udev-rename ttyHSx numbers?

Ah, I did use

root@gta04:~#  ls -d /sys/class/tty/ttyHS*; cat /sys/class/tty/ttyHS*/hsotype
/sys/class/tty/ttyHS0  /sys/class/tty/ttyHS1  /sys/class/tty/ttyHS2  /sys/class/tty/ttyHS3  /sys/class/tty/ttyHS4  /sys/class/tty/ttyHS5
Diagnostic
GPS
GPS Control
Application
Control
Modem

With bInterfaceNumber I get

root@gta04:~# cat /sys/class/tty/ttyHS*/device/bInterfaceNumber
00
01
02
03
04
06

So the Modem is indeed interface 06 and there is just no ttyHS_Network.

> 
>> to access the Application interface, but people reported that it is not stable
>> or always so. Therefore we have some udev rule to add symbolic names
>> (e.g. /dev/ttyHS_Application):
>> 
>> http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=blob;f=GTA04/udev-rules/hso.rules;hb=HEAD
>> 
>> So I think the assignment is not even always the same on the same device.
> 
> The assignment will always be the same on the same device *and the same
> firmware*.  That is because the hso driver asks the firmware for the
> port layout, and that is what is put into the 'hsotype' file in sysfs
> that the udev rules use.  So if your telephony/WWAN stack is using the
> udev symbolic links or reading 'hsotype' directly, you can be assured
> that ttyHS_Modem is always the port you should be using for PPP.
> 
>> And I am a little puzzled why we do see the wIndex == 6 if it is the interface
>> number. Maybe it happens only in some scenario where the Modem becomes
>> interface #6.
> 
> I'm still not convinced that that it isn't #6 until we agree on how
> we're figuring that out :)  I may well assume to little of you, so
> forgive me if you are actually reporting the real USB interface # of the
> ports.  But I've seen too many people confuse the tty numbers with USB
> interface numbers, so I must ask.

Yes, I did the mistake as you describe...

> 
>>> 
>>> Does the following patch fix the problem for you?
>> 
>> I will try but need a little time to setup a test scenario (because I need to trigger
>> RING indications) and will then report.
> 
> Here's a RING on the 452 with Modem @ usbif #6:
> 
> [65808.711323] tiocmget_intr_callback: W_INDEX 0006
> [65808.711330] tiocmget_intr_callback: UART bits 000a
> [65808.711333] tiocmget_intr_callback: Modem ifnum 06
> 
> and B_TX_CARRIER notification with GIO322 with Modem @ usbif #2:
> 
> [66029.365441] tiocmget_intr_callback: W_INDEX 0002
> [66029.365444] tiocmget_intr_callback: UART bits 0002
> [66029.365445] tiocmget_intr_callback: Modem ifnum 02

Hm. I didn't see these messages (on 3.12). How do I enable them?

BTW: the RING (or +CRING:) text messages do appear on the Application port,
while the NO CARRIER after ATA and ending the call appears on
the Modem port.

BR,
Nikolaus

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/