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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E52C07E8E for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=flrLT2KXYZN9G7QzeSNth6PGpz0QD4KxDFgpP/x601I=; b=NheapuRgjlrBUwQ7qjgdE1uyru ah1dEw1TkV5YBsYUGbZCwXquOY+DXp2+cRDDU+TajYnMJ7srD7U+kWHIbFzsak418nxn89hdNRjtF imIubcIf38HiyMoCCnHiurjT7FMy8PWFbV5/++EArd8jAbu3eQc0b51SY4L4CjDl4p6SbF3Pm//N/ 9gMvoCLuTQwKaU+zGJ+7UFpGzO3a7A5fZXhVdeXrjDEUezvvU7Bz9tLWX8v837xBQR9vviYoldxzH LRLTiQFxIBQy6Bf0SPEz8yxe6l/SDX9dL21R0XKDmI2aVygw7p4a48yUNsyEJf3RNzGkVEkbU3Yxt QEETRzjA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rzZGw-00000003Ysk-3tHe for ath12k@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:38 +0000 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org ([145.40.73.55]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rzZGr-00000003Ypc-3l3M for ath12k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:37 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D872CCE0FB1; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0E43C113CE; Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:50:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1713952231; bh=ZgfWCv5rt80c3R+V8piEBul82k/vEs/F7mBFn4S+wkw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=llcj1PHGQFl1TegzZ1jT8kMTyxj4uiHiuqqxKXlub/wKhhTO5qDQf1d/oWmc1vtEm vr4uefpCgCDESei1wzG8fh16xyVSRCpOdqDucEnwxohZq+BCBMgn40MgSt3F+McMn/ jCakuyskNLNiuWmLOkrUKnxmk9M607mZWVRuQa6h2z2I6ACZhqayCOqTWbp/Csb/1l +TFtYzu2Pr2IOhsPs7zNNBr+HtJWWci8soVosb6XpWgssVi2YI9neyJjALY3t11ybK n1IGyTYPKdeuihY9ckOtD1BaEom/hs4L+edVg8kyNQoy2v/RFK+RRzrGnzMlkeDlyY jKbiKW75HAq0g== From: Kalle Valo To: Johannes Berg Cc: Karthikeyan Periyasamy , ath12k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] wifi: ath12k: Add lock to protect the hardware state References: <20240424065646.1666166-1-quic_periyasa@quicinc.com> <20240424065646.1666166-4-quic_periyasa@quicinc.com> <517caf852d37b3803bcf087a6b575f2ecdb5ba10.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87il07t7zq.fsf@kernel.org> <3dc4339f5c3f603027c2214058e7e3251652a7f0.camel@sipsolutions.net> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:50:27 +0300 In-Reply-To: <3dc4339f5c3f603027c2214058e7e3251652a7f0.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:43:58 +0200") Message-ID: <87edavt7h8.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240424_025034_195355_A138F696 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.82 ) X-BeenThere: ath12k@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "ath12k" Errors-To: ath12k-bounces+ath12k=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Johannes Berg writes: > On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 12:39 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> >> Exactly. Swithing to use wiphy_lock() definitely one of my longterm >> goals in ath12k. I already started working on switching ath12k to use >> wiphy_lock() but IIRC I got blocked by not being able to call >> wiphy_delayed_work_cancel() without taking wiphy_lock. > > That's because I didn't want to have an async version, but theoretically > we could have a version of it that just cancels the timer. If you don't > hold the wiphy mutex already you could even wait for it to finish. It > just adds more complexity there, and I was trying to make it all a lot > more obvious :) Yeah, understandable. I think changing ath12k WMI event handling to use wiphy_work makes sense, running them in tasklet context feels overkill. I just need to write the patch :) But after that I hope we can switch to using wiphy mutex. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches