RE: wifi: rtw89: 8852AE: zero SMA in addr CAM for virtual monitor vif, and ~200 ms delay before first TX attempt of injected unicast

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Adilson <aoleandro@proton.me> wrote:
> Would a patch along these lines be acceptable upstream? And would it
> be enough for, or a step towards, advertising ACTIVE_MONITOR on these
> chips? The fix could also key on addr_valid instead of testing for a
> zero address, if you prefer.

I think advertising NL80211_FEATURE_ACTIVE_MONITOR to support active
monitor is better way.

> 
> 2) Injected unicast waits ~200 ms before the first TX attempt
> 
> Injected unicast data frames reach the peer much later than injected
> multicast. Your series from November 2025 (rate/bw/GI for injected
> packets) is included in this kernel; it does not seem to touch this
> wait.

The main differences from unicast and multicast frames are:
1. hw queue 
2. with different queue. It relies on EDCA parameter.
3. rate

You can adjust unicast frame to TX with the same desc_info attributes
as multicast frame to see if anything improved. 

> Disclosure: I did this investigation with the help of an AI assistant
> (Claude, by Anthropic), which I used to read the driver code, write the
> measurement scripts and the experimental patches, and draft this
> message. All measurements were run by me on my own hardware, and I
> have reviewed every claim above and can answer questions about it.

Understood. Currently I assume long long article is generated by LLM.
I knew that becomes common, but it is actual heavy load to me to
read a lot. But still noted your disclosure.