Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] wifi: ath12k: add multiple radio support in a single MAC HW un/register

[Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>]

On 3/12/2024 6:55 AM, Rameshkumar Sundaram wrote:
> From: Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>
> 
> Currently MAC HW un/register helper function support the single radio.
> To enable single/multi link operation in the future, the following helper
> functions need to be refactored to accommodate multiple radios under a
> single MAC HW un/register:
> 
> 	* ath12k_ah_to_ar()
> 	* ath12k_mac_hw_allocate()
> 	* ath12k_mac_hw_register()
> 	* ath12k_mac_hw_unregister()
> 
> This refactoring will make it easier to scale these functionalities and
> support Multi link operation.
> 
>                          Current Multi wiphy Model
> 
>  +---------------+          +---------------+            +---------------+
>  |  Mac80211 hw  |          | Mac80211 hw   |            | Mac80211 hw   |
>  |  private data |          | private data  |            | private data  |
>  |               |          |               |            |               |
>  |ath12k_hw (ah) |          |ath12k_hw (ah) |            |ath12k_hw (ah) |
>  |               |          |               |            |               |
>  | +-----------+ |          | +-----------+ |            | +-----------+ |
>  | | ar (2GHz) | |          | | ar (5GHz) | |            | | ar (6GHz) | |
>  | +-----------+ |          | +-----------+ |            | +-----------+ |
>  |               |          |               |            |               |
>  +---------------+          +---------------+            +---------------+
> 
>                            Single wiphy Model
> 
>                             +--------------+
>                             | Mac80211 hw  |
>                             | private data |
>                             |              |
>                             |ath12k hw (ah)|
>                             | +----------+ |
>                             | |ar (2GHz) | |
>                             | +----------+ |
>                             | |ar (5GHz) | |
>                             | +----------+ |
>                             | |ar (6GHz) | |
>                             | +----------+ |
>                             +--------------+
> 
> Tested-on: QCN9274 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.WBE.1.0.1-00029-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
> Tested-on: WCN7850 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HMT.1.0.c5-00481-QCAHMTSWPL_V1.0_V2.0_SILICONZ-3
> 
> Signed-off-by: Karthikeyan Periyasamy <quic_periyasa@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sriram R <quic_srirrama@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rameshkumar Sundaram <quic_ramess@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h |  12 +-
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c  | 184 ++++++++++++++++---------
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/reg.c  |   2 +-
>  3 files changed, 127 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h
> index 97e5a0ccd233..ff831faa4945 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/core.h
> @@ -951,13 +951,21 @@ static inline struct ath12k_hw *ath12k_hw_to_ah(struct ieee80211_hw  *hw)
>  	return hw->priv;
>  }
>  
> -static inline struct ath12k *ath12k_ah_to_ar(struct ath12k_hw *ah)
> +static inline struct ath12k *ath12k_ah_to_ar(struct ath12k_hw *ah, u8 hw_link_id)
>  {
> -	return ah->radio;
> +	if (WARN(hw_link_id >= ah->num_radio,
> +		 "bad hw link id %d, so switch to default link\n", hw_link_id))
> +		hw_link_id = 0;
> +
> +	return &ah->radio[hw_link_id];
>  }
>  
>  static inline struct ieee80211_hw *ath12k_ar_to_hw(struct ath12k *ar)
>  {
>  	return ar->ah->hw;
>  }
> +
> +#define for_each_ar(index, ah, ar) \
> +	for ((index) = 0; ((index) < (ah)->num_radio && \
> +	     ((ar) = &(ah)->radio[(index)])); (index)++)


this seems like logically the wrong order of operands
this is an operation on the ah object so IMO that should be first
the actual iterators i and ar should follow that

and guess we have to figure out how to suppress the ath12k-check issues with
this macro

that's my only comments on this patch.

/jeff