linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>, 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>,
	Wen Gong <wgong@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 05:55:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <010101746c4824a0-4044dcc3-3713-4231-9789-fecff5795c43-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3ef60c2263a6840d21f6a797ad3ffb685a728b8.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:24:11 +0200")

Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> 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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-08  5:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ 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 ` [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits Kalle Valo
2019-12-19  9:44   ` Pkshih
2019-12-19 15:48     ` Jouni Malinen
2019-12-19 18:32       ` Brian Norris
2019-12-19 18:55         ` Jouni Malinen
2019-12-19 23:40           ` Brian Norris
2020-03-17 16:54             ` Kalle Valo
2020-03-20 12:55               ` Johannes Berg
2020-06-02  1:32                 ` Brian Norris
2020-07-16  9:35                   ` Kalle Valo
2020-07-16 18:56                     ` Brian Norris
2020-07-24  9:26                       ` Kalle Valo
2020-07-30 13:24                         ` Johannes Berg
2020-08-01  1:31                           ` Brian Norris
2020-09-08  5:55                           ` Kalle Valo [this message]
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
2019-12-19  9:45   ` Pkshih
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=010101746c4824a0-4044dcc3-3713-4231-9789-fecff5795c43-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com \
    --to=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
    --cc=j@w1.fi \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).