From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>, "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>, "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>, Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:31:27 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+ASDXOwARX86GzMsSL4N94-jQ-TqAhe07f0AZOQcdKpPyJEgw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c3ef60c2263a6840d21f6a797ad3ffb685a728b8.camel@sipsolutions.net> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:24 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. > > But are we? ;-) I think you were deferring to, "how would user space use it?" And, "would a common API really help anyone?" (And then you implied "anyone" = "Chrome OS.") I expressed a moderate benefit from a common API, but I'd settle for a non-common (but upstream) one instead. I also doubt many non-hardware-customized Linux distributions will make use of this any time soon. I don't think that implied you were truly on a different page. But your response below may say otherwise: > I don't really see anything in the new proposal [1] that really explains > why the common API that we've sort of vaguely outlined in this thread > couldn't work? It just speaks of technical difficulties ("need a > reporting API too"), but should we let that stop us? > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11686317/ Indeed, I don't see any reason beyond technical difficulties. I'd love to have a few extra hours in my day to spend on writing such an API, if that would really unblock months of deadlock. Unfortunately, those hours tend to get eaten by all sorts of other things these days, so an honest assessment would probably say I won't get around to it soon. SAR regulatory concerns aren't really sexy enough to convince me to spend my weekends on it... (...oh wait, it's Friday evening already. Hmm.) Regards, Brian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Cc: Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>, "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>, Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:31:27 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CA+ASDXOwARX86GzMsSL4N94-jQ-TqAhe07f0AZOQcdKpPyJEgw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c3ef60c2263a6840d21f6a797ad3ffb685a728b8.camel@sipsolutions.net> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:24 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. > > But are we? ;-) I think you were deferring to, "how would user space use it?" And, "would a common API really help anyone?" (And then you implied "anyone" = "Chrome OS.") I expressed a moderate benefit from a common API, but I'd settle for a non-common (but upstream) one instead. I also doubt many non-hardware-customized Linux distributions will make use of this any time soon. I don't think that implied you were truly on a different page. But your response below may say otherwise: > I don't really see anything in the new proposal [1] that really explains > why the common API that we've sort of vaguely outlined in this thread > couldn't work? It just speaks of technical difficulties ("need a > reporting API too"), but should we let that stop us? > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11686317/ Indeed, I don't see any reason beyond technical difficulties. I'd love to have a few extra hours in my day to spend on writing such an API, if that would really unblock months of deadlock. Unfortunately, those hours tend to get eaten by all sorts of other things these days, so an honest assessment would probably say I won't get around to it soon. SAR regulatory concerns aren't really sexy enough to convince me to spend my weekends on it... (...oh wait, it's Friday evening already. Hmm.) Regards, Brian _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-01 1:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-12-18 15:48 [PATCH 0/2] ath10k: SAR power limit vendor command Kalle Valo 2019-12-18 15:48 ` Kalle Valo 2019-12-18 15:48 ` [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits Kalle Valo 2019-12-18 15:48 ` Kalle Valo 2019-12-19 9:44 ` Pkshih 2019-12-19 9:44 ` Pkshih 2019-12-19 15:48 ` Jouni Malinen 2019-12-19 15:48 ` Jouni Malinen 2019-12-19 18:32 ` Brian Norris 2019-12-19 18:32 ` Brian Norris 2019-12-19 18:55 ` Jouni Malinen 2019-12-19 18:55 ` Jouni Malinen 2019-12-19 23:40 ` Brian Norris 2019-12-19 23:40 ` Brian Norris 2020-03-17 16:54 ` Kalle Valo 2020-03-17 16:54 ` Kalle Valo 2020-03-20 12:55 ` Johannes Berg 2020-03-20 12:55 ` Johannes Berg 2020-06-02 1:32 ` Brian Norris 2020-06-02 1:32 ` Brian Norris 2020-07-16 9:35 ` Kalle Valo 2020-07-16 9:35 ` Kalle Valo 2020-07-16 18:56 ` Brian Norris 2020-07-16 18:56 ` Brian Norris 2020-07-24 9:26 ` Kalle Valo 2020-07-24 9:26 ` Kalle Valo 2020-07-30 13:24 ` Johannes Berg 2020-07-30 13:24 ` Johannes Berg 2020-08-01 1:31 ` Brian Norris [this message] 2020-08-01 1:31 ` Brian Norris 2020-09-08 5:55 ` Kalle Valo 2020-09-08 5:55 ` Kalle Valo 2020-07-30 13:17 ` Johannes Berg 2020-07-30 13:17 ` Johannes Berg 2019-12-18 15:48 ` [PATCH 2/2] ath10k: allow dynamic SAR power limits to be configured Kalle Valo 2019-12-18 15:48 ` Kalle Valo 2019-12-19 9:45 ` Pkshih 2019-12-19 9:45 ` Pkshih 2020-04-16 7:38 ` Kalle Valo 2020-04-16 7:38 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CA+ASDXOwARX86GzMsSL4N94-jQ-TqAhe07f0AZOQcdKpPyJEgw@mail.gmail.com \ --to=briannorris@chromium.org \ --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=j@w1.fi \ --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \ --cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \ --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=pkshih@realtek.com \ --cc=wgong@codeaurora.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.