From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org>,
Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@google.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
ath11k@lists.infradead.org, ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:35:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dr0nqtv.fsf@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXNaLvtJyY9_ds9RVL9VTkiYzChsGJS1czhVt-RKitCk5g@mail.gmail.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:44:55 -0800")
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> + ath10k
>
> [ I realize I replied to the "wrong" RFC v1; I fell trap to Kalle's note:
>
> "When you submit a new version mark it as "v2". Otherwise people don't
> know what's the latest version." ]
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:32 PM Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2020-11-04 10:00, Brian Norris wrote:
>> > What are the ABI guarantees around a given driver/chip's 'sar_capa'?
>> > Do we guarantee that if the driver supports N ranges of certain bands,
>> > that it will always continue to support those bands?
> ...
>> For a given chip(at least a QCOM chip), we don't see that the
>> range will grow or change.
>
> That's good to know. But that's not quite the same as an ABI guarantee.
I'm not sure if I understood Brian's question correctly, but I have
concerns on the assumption that frequency ranges never change. For
example, in ath10k we have a patch[1] under discussion which adds more
channels and in ath11k we added 6 GHz band after initial ath11k support
landed. And I would not be surprised if in some boards/platforms a
certain band is disabled due to cotting costs (no antenna etc). My
preference is to have a robust interface which would be designed to
handle these kind of changes.
[1] [PATCH] ath10k: enable advertising support for channels 32, 68 and 98
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
ath11k@lists.infradead.org, Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:35:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dr0nqtv.fsf@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXNaLvtJyY9_ds9RVL9VTkiYzChsGJS1czhVt-RKitCk5g@mail.gmail.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:44:55 -0800")
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> + ath10k
>
> [ I realize I replied to the "wrong" RFC v1; I fell trap to Kalle's note:
>
> "When you submit a new version mark it as "v2". Otherwise people don't
> know what's the latest version." ]
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:32 PM Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2020-11-04 10:00, Brian Norris wrote:
>> > What are the ABI guarantees around a given driver/chip's 'sar_capa'?
>> > Do we guarantee that if the driver supports N ranges of certain bands,
>> > that it will always continue to support those bands?
> ...
>> For a given chip(at least a QCOM chip), we don't see that the
>> range will grow or change.
>
> That's good to know. But that's not quite the same as an ABI guarantee.
I'm not sure if I understood Brian's question correctly, but I have
concerns on the assumption that frequency ranges never change. For
example, in ath10k we have a patch[1] under discussion which adds more
channels and in ath11k we added 6 GHz band after initial ath11k support
landed. And I would not be surprised if in some boards/platforms a
certain band is disabled due to cotting costs (no antenna etc). My
preference is to have a robust interface which would be designed to
handle these kind of changes.
[1] [PATCH] ath10k: enable advertising support for channels 32, 68 and 98
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
--
ath11k mailing list
ath11k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath11k
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
ath10k <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
ath11k@lists.infradead.org, Abhishek Kumar <kuabhs@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations.
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:35:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dr0nqtv.fsf@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXNaLvtJyY9_ds9RVL9VTkiYzChsGJS1czhVt-RKitCk5g@mail.gmail.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:44:55 -0800")
Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> + ath10k
>
> [ I realize I replied to the "wrong" RFC v1; I fell trap to Kalle's note:
>
> "When you submit a new version mark it as "v2". Otherwise people don't
> know what's the latest version." ]
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:32 PM Carl Huang <cjhuang@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2020-11-04 10:00, Brian Norris wrote:
>> > What are the ABI guarantees around a given driver/chip's 'sar_capa'?
>> > Do we guarantee that if the driver supports N ranges of certain bands,
>> > that it will always continue to support those bands?
> ...
>> For a given chip(at least a QCOM chip), we don't see that the
>> range will grow or change.
>
> That's good to know. But that's not quite the same as an ABI guarantee.
I'm not sure if I understood Brian's question correctly, but I have
concerns on the assumption that frequency ranges never change. For
example, in ath10k we have a patch[1] under discussion which adds more
channels and in ath11k we added 6 GHz band after initial ath11k support
landed. And I would not be surprised if in some boards/platforms a
certain band is disabled due to cotting costs (no antenna etc). My
preference is to have a robust interface which would be designed to
handle these kind of changes.
[1] [PATCH] ath10k: enable advertising support for channels 32, 68 and 98
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-05 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-22 5:36 [RFC 1/2] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:36 ` Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:36 ` [RFC 2/2] ath10k: allow dynamic SAR power limits via common API Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:36 ` Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:47 ` [RFC 1/2] nl80211: add common API to configure SAR power limitations cjhuang
2020-09-22 5:47 ` cjhuang
2020-09-22 8:09 ` Kalle Valo
2020-09-22 8:09 ` Kalle Valo
2020-11-04 2:00 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 2:00 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 7:32 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 7:32 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 17:44 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 17:44 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 17:44 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-05 8:35 ` Kalle Valo [this message]
2020-11-05 8:35 ` Kalle Valo
2020-11-05 8:35 ` Kalle Valo
2020-11-05 11:10 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:10 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:10 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 18:25 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-05 18:25 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-05 18:25 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-06 10:11 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-06 10:11 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-06 10:11 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:17 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:17 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:17 ` Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:49 Carl Huang
2020-09-22 5:49 ` Carl Huang
2020-09-28 12:36 ` Johannes Berg
2020-09-28 12:36 ` Johannes Berg
2020-10-30 20:56 ` Abhishek Kumar
2020-10-30 20:56 ` Abhishek Kumar
2020-10-31 2:46 ` Abhishek Kumar
2020-11-03 2:34 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-03 2:34 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-03 13:15 ` Johannes Berg
2020-11-03 13:15 ` Johannes Berg
2020-11-04 1:17 ` Abhishek Kumar
2020-11-04 1:17 ` Abhishek Kumar
2020-11-04 6:18 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 6:18 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 8:44 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 8:44 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 17:48 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 17:48 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-05 11:37 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:37 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-04 23:18 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 23:18 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 23:27 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-04 23:27 ` Brian Norris
2020-11-05 11:30 ` Carl Huang
2020-11-05 11:30 ` Carl Huang
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=877dr0nqtv.fsf@codeaurora.org \
--to=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ath11k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=cjhuang@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=kuabhs@google.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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: link
Be 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.