Re: [PATCH] cfg80211/nl80211: Add support for NL80211_STA_INFO_RX_DURATION

[Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@codeaurora.org>]

Hi johannes,

On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 05:07:51PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 21:30 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> 
> > [shafi] This is part of the Per Station statistics requirement,
> 
> Heh. Whose requirements? :)

[shafi] We have this as part of ath10k debugfs based on the end user (or) a
customer requirement and i think its make more sense to have this common across all
wifi drivers rather thank simply dumping it in ath10k debugfs. I think its
similar to 'ieee80211_frame_duration'(?) in mac80211 but for drivers like ath10k
where this is calculated in firmware for rx and implementation specific.

> 
> > the information from 'iw dev wlan#N station dump' which has
> > rx_duration
> > field will be used by application assesing the statistics
> > /performance of various clients connected to our AP. We will plot
> > a graph based on this information (assesing the rx time spent by
> > AP for various clients).
> > 
> > > 
> > > Are you really sure you mean "unicast"? What if the station is the
> > > AP? Why wouldn't multicast frames it transmitted be accounted for?
> > 
> > [shafi] This is based on the implementation by the driver/firmware.
> > We are focused on the AP side so unicast frames, if you are ok with
> > this change, i can change the documentation to be specific (generic
> > for all the drivers)  something like implementation specific (please
> > advise)
> 
> Ok, but for AP side I don't see the difference between "unicast" and
> "all frames", since all frames from that station should be unicast?
> Apart, perhaps, from some management frames the station might send
> outside the BSS, but that's not likely to matter much?

[shafi] exactly, I can change the documentation as you wish and
this is implementation specific, and we have implemented like this in ath10k
targeting AP mode.

> 
> IOW, why not specify all frames, and let this make some sense for other
> interface modes?
>
[shafi] Agreed.

regards,
shafi