All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>
To: Peter Oh <poh@codeaurora.org>, Peter Oh <poh@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath: use PRI value given by spec for fixed PRI
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:04:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <551BC2B1.3030002@neratec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55198EA4.1010101@codeaurora.org>

On 03/30/2015 07:57 PM, Peter Oh wrote:
> 
> On 03/30/2015 02:55 AM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>> [...]
>> That's why I believe we need to
>> be very cautious when changing it to fix / improve minor issues.
> This patch is not for minor fix.
> Current DFS detector fails on Japan W53 band which requires at least 50% of data
> traffic during DFS certificate.
> So this patch should apply to both of 9k and 10k.

That is the core of my concern: you add changes to fix FCC/JP, which at the same
time also affects ETSI.

Our company (and maybe others) got ath9k certified for ETSI, and any potential
change to the detector relevant for that domain would essentially require to
re-certify.

There were several patches lately added to the detector that were isolated to
specific domains (like the recent updates for FCC pattern 1) which I knew won't
affect the ETSI detector performance, since they touched only the FCC
configuration but not the algorithm itself. This patch does, and that's why I need
to point out that doing so might void certification efforts out there.

Unfortunately, I have no good idea how to cope with it. Freezing the driver at the
certified state is no option, since we all want to evolve. Having multiple copies
of the detector for each regulatory domain would be an option (and essentially
will happen since FCC/JP can't be covered by PRI detectors only), but gives
unacceptable code duplication. Ideally we would fully separate algorithm from
configuration and leave the algorithm untouched ever after, not sure how doable,
though.


As for your patch at hand, I tested it for ETSI and it does not change detector
performance, therefore (please replace 16 with PRI_TOLERANCE in the macro)

Acked-by: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>
To: Peter Oh <poh@codeaurora.org>, Peter Oh <poh@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath: use PRI value given by spec for fixed PRI
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:04:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <551BC2B1.3030002@neratec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55198EA4.1010101@codeaurora.org>

On 03/30/2015 07:57 PM, Peter Oh wrote:
> 
> On 03/30/2015 02:55 AM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
>> [...]
>> That's why I believe we need to
>> be very cautious when changing it to fix / improve minor issues.
> This patch is not for minor fix.
> Current DFS detector fails on Japan W53 band which requires at least 50% of data
> traffic during DFS certificate.
> So this patch should apply to both of 9k and 10k.

That is the core of my concern: you add changes to fix FCC/JP, which at the same
time also affects ETSI.

Our company (and maybe others) got ath9k certified for ETSI, and any potential
change to the detector relevant for that domain would essentially require to
re-certify.

There were several patches lately added to the detector that were isolated to
specific domains (like the recent updates for FCC pattern 1) which I knew won't
affect the ETSI detector performance, since they touched only the FCC
configuration but not the algorithm itself. This patch does, and that's why I need
to point out that doing so might void certification efforts out there.

Unfortunately, I have no good idea how to cope with it. Freezing the driver at the
certified state is no option, since we all want to evolve. Having multiple copies
of the detector for each regulatory domain would be an option (and essentially
will happen since FCC/JP can't be covered by PRI detectors only), but gives
unacceptable code duplication. Ideally we would fully separate algorithm from
configuration and leave the algorithm untouched ever after, not sure how doable,
though.


As for your patch at hand, I tested it for ETSI and it does not change detector
performance, therefore (please replace 16 with PRI_TOLERANCE in the macro)

Acked-by: Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-01 10:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-27 16:59 [PATCH] ath: use PRI value given by spec for fixed PRI Peter Oh
2015-03-27 16:59 ` Peter Oh
2015-03-30  9:55 ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-03-30  9:55   ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-03-30 17:57   ` Peter Oh
2015-03-30 17:57     ` Peter Oh
2015-04-01 10:04     ` Zefir Kurtisi [this message]
2015-04-01 10:04       ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-04-01 21:00       ` Peter Oh
2015-04-01 21:00         ` Peter Oh
2015-04-15 12:41         ` Kalle Valo
2015-04-15 12:41           ` Kalle Valo
2015-04-15 17:10           ` Peter Oh
2015-04-15 17:10             ` Peter Oh
2015-09-03 18:04       ` Peter Oh
2015-09-03 18:04         ` Peter Oh
2015-09-04 10:55         ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-09-04 10:55           ` Zefir Kurtisi
2015-09-04 12:55           ` Kalle Valo
2015-09-04 12:55             ` 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=551BC2B1.3030002@neratec.com \
    --to=zefir.kurtisi@neratec.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=poh@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=poh@qca.qualcomm.com \
    /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.