Re: [PATCHv2 8/9] ath10k: Add new api to support TID specific configuration

[Sergey Matyukevich <sergey.matyukevich.os@quantenna.com>]

Hello Tamizh,

> This patch add ops for set_tid_config to support TID
> specific configuration. STA information along with the
> TID config change mask to notify driver that which configuration
> needs to be applied for this current command.
> If the STA info not available in the command then the
> configuration will be applied for all connected stations
> in the vif. TID specific noack configuration requires
> aggregation disabled and rate for the data TID packets
> should be basic rates. So, if the TID already configured
> with noack policy then driver will ignore the aggregation
> or TX rate related configuration for the same data TID.
> In TX rate configuration should be applied with highest
> preamble configuration(HT rates should not be applied
> for the station which supports vht rates).
> 
> Vif specific TID configuration will be applied for all
> the connected stations except for the station which
> already applied with the same configuration for the TID
> through station specific command. Newly connecting stations
> will be applied with vif TID configuration which will be stored
> in ieee80211_vif.
> 
> Testing:
>         * Tested HW: QCA9888
>         * Tested FW: 10.4-3.5.1-00052
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tamizh chelvam <tamizhr@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/core.h |   7 +
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c  | 602 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 529 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/core.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/core.h
> index 27ec555..c25c426 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/core.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/core.h
> @@ -82,6 +82,9 @@
>  /* Default Airtime weight multipler (Tuned for multiclient performance) */
>  #define ATH10K_AIRTIME_WEIGHT_MULTIPLIER  4
> 
> +#define ATH10K_MAX_RETRY_COUNT 30
> +#define ATH10K_MAX_TIDS        8

Is there any reason why you don't use IEEE80211_TID_MAX here ?

Regards,
Sergey