All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>, Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:56:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXOAzPuOn_rMsRj4t56kC-TgoG0p5WhSTPJjB8xTTq5kfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfjjx0o7.fsf@codeaurora.org>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:35 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> > Really, I could live with per-vendor APIs. My primary goal is to get
> > these upstream in some form, so vendors can stop using things like
> > this as a reason for shipping us non-upstream code, and so we can
> > reduce the delta between upstream and Chrome OS kernels.
> >
> > I also think that, for the cases that warrant it (i.e., the option 2
> > -- Realtek and Qualcomm cases, so far), it would be good to have a
> > common API, but that's a somewhat secondary concern for me.
>
> 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.

That's fine with me. That's pretty much what I said in my first email:

"Anyway, I don't really object with starting out with a
Qualcomm-specific and a Realtek-specific vendor command to implement
nearly the same feature, but I'd prefer if people did engage in some
healthy discussion about why they can't share an API, with the hopes
that maybe they can converge someday."

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.

> > Also, Kalle had some concerns about stable ABI questions: shouldn't we
> > bake in some kind of "check for support" feature to these kinds of
> > APIs [3]? That would help ease transition, if we do start with a
> > vendor API and move to a common one in the future.
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea but I don't think that should block
> these patches.

OK, well it was your concern first, IIRC :)

So what's next? A v2 that only needs a bit of updated description
about "why a vendor API"? And Realtek can feel free to submit this [1]
shortly?

Thanks,
Brian

[1] Series: rtw88: Add SAR implementation
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=238219&state=*

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:56:39 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+ASDXOAzPuOn_rMsRj4t56kC-TgoG0p5WhSTPJjB8xTTq5kfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfjjx0o7.fsf@codeaurora.org>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:35 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:
> > Really, I could live with per-vendor APIs. My primary goal is to get
> > these upstream in some form, so vendors can stop using things like
> > this as a reason for shipping us non-upstream code, and so we can
> > reduce the delta between upstream and Chrome OS kernels.
> >
> > I also think that, for the cases that warrant it (i.e., the option 2
> > -- Realtek and Qualcomm cases, so far), it would be good to have a
> > common API, but that's a somewhat secondary concern for me.
>
> 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.

That's fine with me. That's pretty much what I said in my first email:

"Anyway, I don't really object with starting out with a
Qualcomm-specific and a Realtek-specific vendor command to implement
nearly the same feature, but I'd prefer if people did engage in some
healthy discussion about why they can't share an API, with the hopes
that maybe they can converge someday."

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.

> > Also, Kalle had some concerns about stable ABI questions: shouldn't we
> > bake in some kind of "check for support" feature to these kinds of
> > APIs [3]? That would help ease transition, if we do start with a
> > vendor API and move to a common one in the future.
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea but I don't think that should block
> these patches.

OK, well it was your concern first, IIRC :)

So what's next? A v2 that only needs a bit of updated description
about "why a vendor API"? And Realtek can feel free to submit this [1]
shortly?

Thanks,
Brian

[1] Series: rtw88: Add SAR implementation
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=238219&state=*

_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-16 18:56 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 [this message]
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
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+ASDXOAzPuOn_rMsRj4t56kC-TgoG0p5WhSTPJjB8xTTq5kfg@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 \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits' \
    /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

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.