Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
	tony0620emma@gmail.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	steventing@realtek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rtw88: add debugfs to force lowest basic rate
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:00:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k0hs2l9i.fsf@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMPqT8VH5alHQXXA@google.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:57:19 -0700")

(replying to an old thread:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20210422030413.9738-2-pkshih@realtek.com/ )

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>> From: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@realtek.com>
>> 
>> The management frame with high rate e.g. 24M may not be transmitted
>> smoothly in long range environment.
>> Add a debugfs to force to use the lowest basic rate
>> in order to debug the reachability of transmitting management frame.
>> 
>> obtain current setting
>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>> 
>> force lowest rate:
>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phyX/rtw88/basic_rates
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Yu-Yen Ting <steventing@realtek.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
>
> I believe some initial objection to this was because it was unclear if
> this is for "production" use (e.g., recommending distros to play with
> this) or for debugging. I'll admit, I requested the feature for patch 1,
> because I've seen that for those networks where people *do* configure
> odd Basic Rates, they intend for stations to follow those, and not use
> the lowest (and most airtime-hogging) rates.
>
> And I can say, I don't see why distributions should be turning that back
> off. If the Basic Rates setting is wrong, then the that's up to the
> network admin to fix.
>
> All that is to say: I agree that this patch is purely for debugging, as
> stated, and that it belongs in debugfs. I also maintain a distribution,
> and I don't plan on using this beyond debugging.
>
> Therefore:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

Ok, fair enough as long as this will not end up normal users using it. I
still would prefer to have extensive bitrate handling via nl80211 but
clearly it's not going anywhere.

But could the debugfs filename be more descriptive, for example
force_basic_rates or something like that?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches