From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from a27-21.smtp-out.us-west-2.amazonses.com ([54.240.27.21]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kFWaw-0007wU-H2 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 05:55:08 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits References: <1576684108-30177-1-git-send-email-kvalo@codeaurora.org> <1576684108-30177-2-git-send-email-kvalo@codeaurora.org> <1576748692.7758.17.camel@realtek.com> <20191219154828.GA12287@w1.fi> <20191219185522.GA16010@w1.fi> <871rpqly6a.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87lfjjx0o7.fsf@codeaurora.org> <87y2n9clhj.fsf@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 05:55:01 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:24:11 +0200") Message-ID: <010101746c48247e-7b052e84-ed99-4b4f-be90-e35555d5b314-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Johannes Berg Cc: Pkshih , Jouni Malinen , Brian Norris , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Wen Gong Johannes Berg writes: > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 12:26 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> > > So to me it feels like the best solution forward is to go with the >> > > vendor API, do you agree? We can, of course, later switch to the common >> > > API if we manage to create one which is usable for everyone. > > But why wouldn't we try that now, while we have it all in our heads (in > a way ... even if this discussion drags out forever)? > > I mean, the range-based approach ought to work, and if we define it as a > nested attribute list or so, we can even later add more attributes to it > (chain limits, whatnot) without any backward compatibility concerns. > > So what is it that we _cannot_ do in a more common way today? > >> > I think we've had some healthy (though very protracted) discussion, >> > and I don't think I've seen anyone bring up anything I wasn't already >> > aware of that would prevent eventual consolidation. As long as we >> > acknowledge those things (item 2 at >> > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api), >> > I'm happy. >> >> Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. > > But are we? ;-) > > 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/ I misunderstood then, I thought everyone were leaning towards the vendor API approach. But yeah, of course a common API is much better if people think it's doable. So I'll now drop all the vendor API patches from patchwork and assume/hope that we will get the common API at some point. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k