From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Tamizh Chelvam Raja <c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com>,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
"tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org" <tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org>,
"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] cfg80211: mac80211: BTCOEX feature support
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:32:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1492065153.28255.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <efe890d95d374af7b7a8839811afe0d8@aphydexm01f.ap.qualcomm.com>
On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 07:08 +0000, Tamizh Chelvam Raja wrote:
> >
> > So you make a distinction between WMM ACs, but what about the
> > different
> > types/profiles of BT traffic?
> >
>
> [Tamizh] There will be BT high and BT low traffic. It will be decided
> by BT module. Firmware internally checks BT low traffic with wlan
> traffic. If we enable some of wlan frames as high priority, those
> frames will have more priority than BT low traffic.
That ("firmware internally..." etc.) really sounds more like an
argument *not* to apply this patch ...
Everyone has their favourite BT coex control. We could possibly
implement this in our driver, but I'm not sure we'd *want* to, since
it's so far from what we actually do today.
Do we really need more than toggling it on/off?
Actually, I probably should've asked this much earlier - but what use
cases do you see for this? What can a user, or userspace application
like NM, really try to set here? It seems the use cases for this would
be rather constrained?
johannes
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Tamizh Chelvam Raja <c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com>,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
"tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org" <tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org>,
"linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/2] cfg80211: mac80211: BTCOEX feature support
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:32:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1492065153.28255.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <efe890d95d374af7b7a8839811afe0d8@aphydexm01f.ap.qualcomm.com>
On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 07:08 +0000, Tamizh Chelvam Raja wrote:
> >
> > So you make a distinction between WMM ACs, but what about the
> > different
> > types/profiles of BT traffic?
> >
>
> [Tamizh] There will be BT high and BT low traffic. It will be decided
> by BT module. Firmware internally checks BT low traffic with wlan
> traffic. If we enable some of wlan frames as high priority, those
> frames will have more priority than BT low traffic.
That ("firmware internally..." etc.) really sounds more like an
argument *not* to apply this patch ...
Everyone has their favourite BT coex control. We could possibly
implement this in our driver, but I'm not sure we'd *want* to, since
it's so far from what we actually do today.
Do we really need more than toggling it on/off?
Actually, I probably should've asked this much earlier - but what use
cases do you see for this? What can a user, or userspace application
like NM, really try to set here? It seems the use cases for this would
be rather constrained?
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-13 6:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-11 10:15 [PATCHv4 0/2] cfg80211: mac80211: BTCOEX feature support c_traja
2017-04-11 10:15 ` c_traja
2017-04-11 10:15 ` [PATCHv4 1/2] cfg80211: Add support to enable or disable btcoex and set btcoex_priority c_traja
2017-04-11 10:15 ` c_traja
2017-05-19 11:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-05-19 11:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-11 10:15 ` [PATCHv4 2/2] mac80211: Add support to enable or disable btcoex and set btcoex priority value c_traja
2017-04-11 10:15 ` c_traja
2017-04-11 12:02 ` [PATCHv4 0/2] cfg80211: mac80211: BTCOEX feature support Arend Van Spriel
2017-04-11 12:02 ` Arend Van Spriel
2017-04-12 7:08 ` Tamizh Chelvam Raja
2017-04-12 7:08 ` Tamizh Chelvam Raja
2017-04-13 6:32 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-04-13 6:32 ` Johannes Berg
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=1492065153.28255.1.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com \
--cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=tamizhchelvam@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 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.