Re: [PATCH] wifi: brcmfmac: set F2 blocksize to 256 for BCM43752

Op 13 juli 2026 13:52:28 schreef Gokul Sivakumar 
<[email protected]>:

> On 07/13, Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 13/07/2026 10:50, LiangCheng Wang wrote:
>>> The BCM43752 is not reliable with the default 512-byte SDIO function 2
>>> block size: on an i.MX8MP board with an AMPAK AP6275S module at
>>> SDR104 / 200 MHz, an iperf TX stress test kills WLAN within seconds:
>>>
>>> mmc_submit_one: CMD53 sg block write failed -84
>>> brcmf_sdio_dpc: failed backplane access over SDIO, halting operation
>>>
>>> Commit d2587c57ffd8 ("brcmfmac: add 43752 SDIO ids and initialization")
>>> set up the 43752 like the 4373 for the F2 watermark but missed the F2
>>> block size, which the 4373 limits to 256 bytes. The vendor driver
>>> (bcmdhd) also programs a 256-byte F2 block size for this chip and runs
>>> the same hardware without errors.
>>>
>>> Group the 43752 with the 4373, matching the F2 watermark handling.
>>> With this change a 10-minute bidirectional iperf3 soak completes with
>>> zero SDIO errors at ~270 Mbit/s in each direction.
>>>
>>> Fixes: d2587c57ffd8 ("brcmfmac: add 43752 SDIO ids and initialization")
>>> Cc: [email protected] # <= 6.16 needs the CYPRESS_43752 id name
>>
>> Looks good to me but the stable instruction looks confusion. What do you
>> mean. If there is no 43752 support there is no need for this patch, right?
>
> Arend, one year back, from Infineon we had submitted a patch [1] to correct
> the vendor ownership of 43752. i.e, SDIO_DEVICE_ID_BROADCOM_CYPRESS_4373 got
> replaced with SDIO_DEVICE_ID_BROADCOM_43752.
>
> So in the older kernel versions like v6.16.x which does not have patch [1],
> the 43752 support exists, but with SDIO_DEVICE_ID_BROADCOM_CYPRESS_43752.
> So his instruction is to, again replace SDIO_DEVICE_ID_BROADCOM_4373 with
> SDIO_DEVICE_ID_BROADCOM_CYPRESS_43752 in his patch [2] while cherry-picking
> to the older stable trees.
>
> Rather than that, I would suggest to cherry-pick both the patches [1] & [2]
> to stable trees, since the new patch [2] is dependent on existing patch [1].

Agreed. Thanks for your guidance.

Regards,
Arend

>
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
> [2] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/[email protected]/
>
> Gokul
>
>>> Signed-off-by: LiangCheng Wang <[email protected]>
>>> ---