RE: [PATCH rtw-next v9 0/4] wifi: rtw88: sdio: Fix unhandled RX request interrupt storm

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev> wrote:
> November 7, 2026 at 4:53 AM, "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@d-silva.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 3081-based SDIO chips (observed on RTL8821CS; RTL8822BS and RTL8822CS
> > are inferred to be affected as they share the 3081 architecture), clearing
> > REG_SDIO_HISR_RX_REQUEST requires both a software W1C acknowledge and an
> > empty RX FIFO. Masking this bit out before writing back to HISR prevents
> > the software acknowledge from happening, leaving the bit asserted even
> > after the FIFO is drained and trapping the CPU core in an infinite
> > interrupt storm that locks up the system upon receiving network traffic.
> >
> > This series fixes the interrupt storm on 3081 chips and addresses
> > related SDIO lifecycle, locking, and error handling issues:
> >
> > - Patch 1 returns error codes from rtw_sdio_rxfifo_recv() on allocation,
> >  oversized packet, or read failures so the caller stops immediately
> >  instead of burning through the loop budget.
> > - Patch 2 tracks operational state via rtwsdio->running protected by an
> >  irq_lock mutex (using a mutex as SDIO bus operations sleep), serializes
> >  start/stop state transitions under sdio_claim_host() and irq_lock,
> >  cancels the TX worker synchronously on stop, drains rtwsdio->tx_queue[]
> >  with locked skb_dequeue() and ieee80211_free_txskb() in rtw_sdio_stop()
> >  and again in rtw_sdio_start(), and resets rtwsdio->tx_queue_stopped[]
> >  while waking stopped AC queues under tx_queue[].lock in rtw_sdio_start().
> > - Patch 3 fixes the interrupt storm by splitting
> >  rtw_sdio_handle_interrupt() into 8051 and 3081 paths. On 3081,
> >  interrupts are masked via HIMR, acknowledged via W1C writeback,
> >  serviced, and re-enabled under irq_lock if still running.
> > - Patch 4 refactors rtw_sdio_rx_isr() into separate 8051 and 3081 variants
> >  to clarify the differences in register width and HISR handling without
> >  any logic changes.
> >
> 
> Thanks for addressing those comments, v9 looks good to me,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Luka Gejak <luka.gejak@linux.dev>

I don't know why I can't see v10 in patchwork [1].
Please take Luka's Reviewed-by for each patch, and send v10.

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=&submitter=Alastair&state=*&q=&archive=&delegate=