pull-request: ath-current-20260113

pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Jeff Johnson]

The following changes since commit a203dbeeca15a9b924f0d51f510921f4bae96801:

  wifi: mac80211: collect station statistics earlier when disconnect (2026-01-08 13:33:11 +0100)

are available in the Git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ath/ath.git tags/ath-current-20260113

for you to fetch changes up to 31707572108da55a005e7fed32cc3869c16b7c16:

  wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue (2026-01-13 07:25:02 -0800)

----------------------------------------------------------------
ath.git update for v6.19-rc6

A collection of small bug fixes in ath10k and ath12k.

Note to maintainers:

This tag includes:
31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")

That commit contains the following:

Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:

This patch going through the "current" tree conflicts with
the following going through the "next" tree:
commit 631ee338f04d ("Merge branch 'ath12k-ng' into ath-next")

The conflict resolution is to leave the following file unmodified:
drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.

And to apply the following patch to ath12k_wifi7_mac_op_tx()
in the file drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/wifi7/hw.c -705,7 +705,10

 			return;
 		}
 	} else {
-		link_id = 0;
+		if (vif->type == NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE)
+			link_id = ATH12K_FIRST_SCAN_LINK;
+		else
+			link_id = 0;
 	}

 	arvif = rcu_dereference(ahvif->link[link_id]);

----------------------------------------------------------------
Baochen Qiang (2):
      wifi: ath12k: don't force radio frequency check in freq_to_idx()
      wifi: ath12k: fix dead lock while flushing management frames

Manish Dharanenthiran (1):
      wifi: ath12k: cancel scan only on active scan vdev

Thomas Fourier (2):
      wifi: ath10k: fix dma_free_coherent() pointer
      wifi: ath12k: fix dma_free_coherent() pointer

Yingying Tang (2):
      wifi: ath12k: Fix scan state stuck in ABORTING after cancel_remain_on_channel
      wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue

 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/ce.c  | 16 ++++++++--------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/ce.c  | 12 ++++++------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/mac.c | 16 ++++++++++------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/wmi.c |  9 +--------
 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 09:33 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> 
> Note to maintainers:
> 
> This tag includes:
> 31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")
> 
> That commit contains the following:
> 
> Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:

I'm a bit on the fence about this, I hadn't thought about it on the
prior -next PR much, but I feel like this is a process thing that
shouldn't get recorded in the tag for posterity?

I do appreciate the inclusion of this (*especially* when I won't notice
the merge conflict myself), but I tend to think it should be in the
email rather than the tag message, since the latter is something I use
for the merge commit message and it gets recorded.

Either way I have to preserve it manually to the next level, so it
doesn't really help all that much, although I guess in the tag there's a
chance I could see it again when preparing my PR.

I'll just edit it out this time I think since it's so long, but you can
complain and convince me otherwise for the next time ;-)

johannes

Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Jeff Johnson]

On 1/14/2026 1:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 09:33 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Note to maintainers:
>>
>> This tag includes:
>> 31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")
>>
>> That commit contains the following:
>>
>> Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:
> 
> I'm a bit on the fence about this, I hadn't thought about it on the
> prior -next PR much, but I feel like this is a process thing that
> shouldn't get recorded in the tag for posterity?
> 
> I do appreciate the inclusion of this (*especially* when I won't notice
> the merge conflict myself), but I tend to think it should be in the
> email rather than the tag message, since the latter is something I use
> for the merge commit message and it gets recorded.
> 
> Either way I have to preserve it manually to the next level, so it
> doesn't really help all that much, although I guess in the tag there's a
> chance I could see it again when preparing my PR.
> 
> I'll just edit it out this time I think since it's so long, but you can
> complain and convince me otherwise for the next time ;-)

In retrospect I made one bad decision. I modified the commit text of that
patch in my "pending" branch to add the conflict resolution information.
Instead of that, I should have reposted the "pending" version with that
conflict resolution embedded in the "basement" of the patch so that then it
would be part of the email record on lore but not part of the patch record in
git. And then for the tag I could have referred to that lore link in the PR
email. So this was a good learning lesson for me.

Hopefully these merge conflicts will be much fewer once the refactored ath12k
lands in Linus' tree in the next merge window.

/jeff

Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Johannes Berg]

On Wed, 2026-01-14 at 07:13 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 1/14/2026 1:47 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2026-01-13 at 09:33 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > Note to maintainers:
> > > 
> > > This tag includes:
> > > 31707572108d ("wifi: ath12k: Fix wrong P2P device link id issue")
> > > 
> > > That commit contains the following:
> > > 
> > > Note to linux-next and netdev maintainers:
> > 
> > I'm a bit on the fence about this, I hadn't thought about it on the
> > prior -next PR much, but I feel like this is a process thing that
> > shouldn't get recorded in the tag for posterity?
> > 
> > I do appreciate the inclusion of this (*especially* when I won't notice
> > the merge conflict myself), but I tend to think it should be in the
> > email rather than the tag message, since the latter is something I use
> > for the merge commit message and it gets recorded.
> > 
> > Either way I have to preserve it manually to the next level, so it
> > doesn't really help all that much, although I guess in the tag there's a
> > chance I could see it again when preparing my PR.
> > 
> > I'll just edit it out this time I think since it's so long, but you can
> > complain and convince me otherwise for the next time ;-)
> 
> In retrospect I made one bad decision.

FTR, I didn't meant to imply that you made a bad choice here - including
this information was valuable. I just didn't think it needs to be in the
tag message, as outlined.

And I was scratching my head over what you said below when I read your
mail earlier, and again now, until I looked back at git ...

> I modified the commit text of that
> patch in my "pending" branch to add the conflict resolution information.

I hadn't even noticed _that_! I only noticed it in the merge / tag
message, not in the individual commit.

> Instead of that, I should have reposted the "pending" version with that
> conflict resolution embedded in the "basement" of the patch so that then it
> would be part of the email record on lore but not part of the patch record in
> git. And then for the tag I could have referred to that lore link in the PR
> email. So this was a good learning lesson for me.

Makes sense.

Do you just want to redo it? I don't mind backing it out, nobody pulled
my tree yet I'd think?

> Hopefully these merge conflicts will be much fewer once the refactored ath12k
> lands in Linus' tree in the next merge window.

Right.

johannes

Re: pull-request: ath-current-20260113

[Jeff Johnson]

On 1/14/2026 9:08 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Do you just want to redo it? I don't mind backing it out, nobody pulled
> my tree yet I'd think?

My opinion is to leave it as is.
let's not add extra work unless netdev or Linus says otherwise :)

/jeff