@@ -1243,7 +1243,7 @@ static int rtw89_core_rx_process_phy_ppdu(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
struct rtw89_rx_phy_ppdu *phy_ppdu)
{
if (RTW89_GET_PHY_STS_LEN(phy_ppdu->buf) << 3 != phy_ppdu->len) {
- rtw89_warn(rtwdev, "phy ppdu len mismatch\n");
+ rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_UNEXP, "phy ppdu len mismatch\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
rtw89_core_update_phy_ppdu(phy_ppdu);
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ enum rtw89_debug_mask {
RTW89_DBG_BF = BIT(14),
RTW89_DBG_HW_SCAN = BIT(15),
RTW89_DBG_SAR = BIT(16),
+
+ RTW89_DBG_UNEXP = BIT(31),
};
enum rtw89_debug_mac_reg_sel {
@@ -228,7 +228,8 @@ static u32 rtw89_pci_rxbd_deliver_skbs(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
if (fs) {
if (new) {
- rtw89_err(rtwdev, "skb should not be ready before first segment start\n");
+ rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_UNEXP,
+ "skb should not be ready before first segment start\n");
goto err_sync_device;
}
if (desc_info->ready) {
@@ -251,7 +252,7 @@ static u32 rtw89_pci_rxbd_deliver_skbs(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
} else {
offset = sizeof(struct rtw89_pci_rxbd_info);
if (!new) {
- rtw89_warn(rtwdev, "no last skb\n");
+ rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_UNEXP, "no last skb\n");
goto err_sync_device;
}
}
@@ -605,7 +606,7 @@ static void rtw89_pci_isr_rxd_unavail(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev,
hw_idx_next = (hw_idx + 1) % bd_ring->len;
if (hw_idx_next == host_idx)
- rtw89_warn(rtwdev, "%d RXD unavailable\n", i);
+ rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_UNEXP, "%d RXD unavailable\n", i);
rtw89_debug(rtwdev, RTW89_DBG_TXRX,
"%d RXD unavailable, idx=0x%08x, len=%d\n",
Some warning messages could bother users. With proper handling, these situations don't really affect usage, but we still need to keep monitor these messages. If they happen frequently, we must review driver or hardware design to clarify. Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c | 2 +- drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/debug.h | 2 ++ drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/pci.c | 7 ++++--- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)