From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2516FECAAD2 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229996AbiH2PTy (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:19:54 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42742 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230056AbiH2PTw (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:19:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE1481121 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id c7so3941817wrp.11 for ; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:19:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=/bmC2sGXr3eAFuoiUJYx9l6wZp52JNSwjnT6lu4TLTU=; b=DB3P5cD+fAAC+R92BiAiXIqperLEM6Jk3ZLqpOGqqfqKCuzNvWPgqA3RIeyYXS7NVq /ElZxtTRArUgZG4NJnMfp62epIz4iYlUR5o2Uy43rdTfB4UopzLWlRFlZhHH1SpqJOr5 NmpHBueraORxhRyPxYk2E9BTfhdvmqMCPtrdGvz/bdAHR2SuUQdwHQwV2oYNErF4LxYQ SyP1iaduGycxMmAbl8S/nY299nlmnNg76/CExRxdO9pGn9uVnKd9BrE7PjvQmjjUy1Ak VdJqiVb9LR+9DphGrMPa3dpMdFe3LwYMKlv11G89lWv3hHLU/UHIGKBoRonBoR1SDzrw 4xVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=/bmC2sGXr3eAFuoiUJYx9l6wZp52JNSwjnT6lu4TLTU=; b=rspmQJAoMSozbPS7UV5UL+tQmViRzJbyYHvs9CDl5uzbNmeIAO3qHwW3fQ0n/YGm7p XUqqa23zAkmHfwtH08DJCXTTC0rtIXRFSampQWW+HI60EuNMjSy5tkViSJjMAUKkhEc/ YefkAYmNnmwwZ1D3O/D3Jc8RRfmywgNxPLz7GbW5kruarJTOYpfJUkW0ydvC9q8PUyeM A3zTnOsQxw1LldqeU3MBxjTuBV7jYyNZikIdFoJqJ+CI2cc8Z7kJ1rykq8wlXA/L+Iuq O3AqD14IJfIvwkTSwy9qZyCcjq7kEtau0BO7zt1Z8LEPBTXS4K2jG0MYVvwO3xPk6j2R fQ4w== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0DatxbWuognt6awp3oqs/9EYSXRtqZQ/Q4AMloFwiZL+tAngMB l7nxHvTJNH1plJ5X/cNeuNI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6foPnejju4PSvX8xsaSKfZUDqqlBuIOuCdFgEuMyx9RuY7ArwNKB9On10Er+rW3rb5+SxSgQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:186f:b0:226:e045:aee with SMTP id d15-20020a056000186f00b00226e0450aeemr552217wri.677.1661786387305; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (p200300c56f18a60054f4ba7ca0871a5f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:c5:6f18:a600:54f4:ba7c:a087:1a5f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a12-20020a05600c348c00b003a5bd5ea215sm9807832wmq.37.2022.08.29.08.19.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\)) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] mac80211: add TPC support in control path From: Jonas Jelonek In-Reply-To: <50d80bebabe0ce2413af89af7bf45321ac7f0d6b.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 17:19:45 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Thomas_H=C3=BChn?= , linux-wireless , "nbd@nbd.name" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20220829144147.484787-1-jelonek.jonas@gmail.com> <5175b7f95442eff1f8e899feee3d3aeb330fb61e.camel@sipsolutions.net> <5AA24131-A7E9-451D-97AB-97D925B2A53A@hs-nordhausen.de> <8867d4a7552fc036da51ef5451ead1fd4df7f139.camel@sipsolutions.net> <50d80bebabe0ce2413af89af7bf45321ac7f0d6b.camel@sipsolutions.net> To: Johannes Berg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Good point, definitely makes sense. Would this be sufficient as an implementation for this RFC? Greetings Jonas > On 29. Aug 2022, at 16:52, Johannes Berg = wrote: >=20 > On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 16:52 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 16:51 +0200, Thomas H=C3=BChn wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Compile-Tested: current wireless-next tree with all flags on >>>>> Tested-on PCEngines APU with ath9k WiFi device on OpenWrt Linux >>>>> Kernel 5.10.137 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> That seems just a little old? Not sure I'd trust that given the = major >>>> changes in the tree recently? >>>=20 >>> Good point, we can test this with 5.15.63 by enabling the OpenWrt = testing kernel =E2=80=A6 would that be ok ? >>>=20 >>=20 >> Well a lot of major changes just happened 5.19 -> 6.0, so something = more >> recent would be better? >>=20 >=20 > Maybe you could add support in hwsim? >=20 > johannes