All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cfg80211: Add new NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX_PRIORITY to support BTCOEX
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:41:35 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae82112880d55451342e7a6e5a47c33f@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1481881024.27953.14.camel@sipsolutions.net>

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for your comments.

On 2016-12-16 15:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > is it fine to have as WIPHY_BTCOEX_BE_PREFERRED ?
>> >
>> > It's not really clear to me what you intend to do this - if it's
>> > really support flags then you really should name those better.
>> >
>> 
>> This is support flags and it used by the driver to intimate driver 
>> supported frame type for the BTCOEX to cfg like
>> "wiphy_wowlan_support_flags" implementation. Please suggest if this
>> is ok ? I will be thankful if you can suggest a  better one if this
>> is not ok "WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE"
> 
> Well, I see a few things here:
> 
> 1) does it even make sense to split it out per AC? wouldn't it be weird
> if you supported this only for VO and BK, and not the others, or
> something like that?
> 
It has support for BE, VI, management and beacon frames also.
Or do you meant to say like support only for VO and BK?

> 2) Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in nl80211 and just pass
> the bitmap through to userspace? That would save quite a bit of netlink
> mangling complexity.
> 
Please let me know if the below design/thought is fine to you.

iw phyX set btcoex_priority <[vi, vo, be, bk, mgmt, beacon]>

By this command user should give one or more than one frame types for 
this btcoex priority,
we will parse that in "iw" and send as a single bitmap(less than 0x64) 
to
the driver?

> 3) I think the naming is confusing - "WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE_PREF" or
> so might be more appropriate?
> 
If the above suggestion is fine, we may not need these flags.

>> Do you mean to say, sending a value from user space and parse that
>> in  the driver?
> 
> I was more thinking of the capability advertisement, but yeah, both
> ways seems reasonable.
> 
Okay.

Thanks,
Tamizh.

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	ath10k@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cfg80211: Add new NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX_PRIORITY to support BTCOEX
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 13:41:35 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae82112880d55451342e7a6e5a47c33f@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1481881024.27953.14.camel@sipsolutions.net>

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for your comments.

On 2016-12-16 15:07, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> > > is it fine to have as WIPHY_BTCOEX_BE_PREFERRED ?
>> >
>> > It's not really clear to me what you intend to do this - if it's
>> > really support flags then you really should name those better.
>> >
>> 
>> This is support flags and it used by the driver to intimate driver 
>> supported frame type for the BTCOEX to cfg like
>> "wiphy_wowlan_support_flags" implementation. Please suggest if this
>> is ok ? I will be thankful if you can suggest a  better one if this
>> is not ok "WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE"
> 
> Well, I see a few things here:
> 
> 1) does it even make sense to split it out per AC? wouldn't it be weird
> if you supported this only for VO and BK, and not the others, or
> something like that?
> 
It has support for BE, VI, management and beacon frames also.
Or do you meant to say like support only for VO and BK?

> 2) Wouldn't it make more sense to define this in nl80211 and just pass
> the bitmap through to userspace? That would save quite a bit of netlink
> mangling complexity.
> 
Please let me know if the below design/thought is fine to you.

iw phyX set btcoex_priority <[vi, vo, be, bk, mgmt, beacon]>

By this command user should give one or more than one frame types for 
this btcoex priority,
we will parse that in "iw" and send as a single bitmap(less than 0x64) 
to
the driver?

> 3) I think the naming is confusing - "WIPHY_BTCOEX_SUPPORTS_BE_PREF" or
> so might be more appropriate?
> 
If the above suggestion is fine, we may not need these flags.

>> Do you mean to say, sending a value from user space and parse that
>> in  the driver?
> 
> I was more thinking of the capability advertisement, but yeah, both
> ways seems reasonable.
> 
Okay.

Thanks,
Tamizh.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-19  8:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-08 13:15 [PATCH 0/4] cfg80211: mac80211: BTCOEX feature support c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15 ` c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 1/4] cfg80211: Add support to enable or disable btcoex c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15   ` c_traja
2016-12-05 14:46   ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-05 14:46     ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-07 11:04     ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-12-07 11:04       ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 2/4] cfg80211: Add new NL80211_CMD_SET_BTCOEX_PRIORITY to support BTCOEX c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15   ` c_traja
2016-12-05 14:49   ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-05 14:49     ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-07 17:59     ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-12-07 17:59       ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-12-13 16:09       ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-13 16:09         ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-16  5:53         ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-12-16  5:53           ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-12-16  9:37           ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-16  9:37             ` Johannes Berg
2016-12-19  8:11             ` Tamizh chelvam [this message]
2016-12-19  8:11               ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-02 10:48               ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-02 10:48                 ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 13:18                 ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-05 13:18                   ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-05 13:38                   ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-05 13:38                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 10:10                     ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-09 10:10                       ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-09 10:36                       ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-09 10:36                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-01-19 13:52                         ` Tamizh chelvam
2017-01-19 13:52                           ` Tamizh chelvam
2016-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 3/4] mac80211: Add support to enable or disable btcoex c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15   ` c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 4/4] mac80211: Add support to update btcoex priority value c_traja
2016-11-08 13:15   ` c_traja

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=ae82112880d55451342e7a6e5a47c33f@codeaurora.org \
    --to=tamizhchelvam@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=c_traja@qti.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.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.