From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA28CD6E50 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232444AbjJKJNr (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2023 05:13:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41644 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231182AbjJKJNq (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2023 05:13:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8310698 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 02:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CE42C433C7; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:13:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1697015624; bh=zTR9jSfctFPdj2KpKIyTrJ6PeHXdRAVd7Qnm5yLcJxE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=RlpztWxs7fdjkdqQV2J0GGFOFT5E4twEgNVXpQo+E7CAiT1P0fvvnc/xkYdqmVk4f WEg6R4lkkBVEKjQecgy6LyCrbYswAMdjJqbXS5B215TciPJYvtG9G+/e58aE3LJzU+ Pw8qfwtlMGe3FKsgb16kySTg/aLE11PqqVNnwsXpXQzgoqLu5K52xV4PhTHTmgbuXE 36b3jQOLXtUzKon/gJYKKGabluPGt1i9GTn0PRnUuRG/vElygXTFiPQeC5I6KAfHcx 2iVOl2amsJADA9pJ0YBpDG7a1HJXJYBnHet4uXhb+qReyziaUFC9TQHJE9CV46Aj+e P1+NhnGRWbvVA== From: Kalle Valo To: Ping-Ke Shih Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] wifi: rtw89: add EHT radiotap in monitor mode References: <20231010021006.6061-1-pkshih@realtek.com> <20231010021006.6061-7-pkshih@realtek.com> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:13:41 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20231010021006.6061-7-pkshih@realtek.com> (Ping-Ke Shih's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:10:06 +0800") Message-ID: <87il7d4j3u.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Ping-Ke Shih writes: > Add IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT and IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG radiotap to > fill basic EHT NSS, MCS, GI and bandwidth. > > Signed-off-by: Ping-Ke Shih > --- > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.h | 9 +++- > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c > index 2742e6646cf1..8cb1715d049a 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c > @@ -1907,6 +1907,70 @@ static void rtw89_core_hw_to_sband_rate(struct ieee80211_rx_status *rx_status) > rx_status->rate_idx -= 4; > } > > +static u8 rx_status_bw_to_radiotap_eht_usig[] = { > + [RATE_INFO_BW_20] = IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG_COMMON_BW_20MHZ, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_5] = U8_MAX, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_10] = U8_MAX, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_40] = IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG_COMMON_BW_40MHZ, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_80] = IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG_COMMON_BW_80MHZ, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_160] = IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG_COMMON_BW_160MHZ, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_HE_RU] = U8_MAX, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_320] = IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG_COMMON_BW_320MHZ_1, > + [RATE_INFO_BW_EHT_RU] = U8_MAX, > +}; Sorry, I noticed this only when I was abot to commit this. Should this be static const? > +static void rtw89_core_update_radiotap_eht(struct rtw89_dev *rtwdev, > + struct sk_buff *skb, > + struct ieee80211_rx_status *rx_status) > +{ > + struct ieee80211_radiotap_eht_usig *usig; > + struct ieee80211_radiotap_eht *eht; > + struct ieee80211_radiotap_tlv *tlv; > + int eht_len = struct_size(eht, user_info, 1); > + int usig_len = sizeof(*usig); > + int len; > + u8 bw; > + > + len = sizeof(*tlv) + ALIGN(eht_len, 4) + > + sizeof(*tlv) + ALIGN(usig_len, 4); > + > + rx_status->flag |= RX_FLAG_RADIOTAP_TLV_AT_END; > + skb_reset_mac_header(skb); > + > + /* EHT */ > + tlv = skb_push(skb, len); > + memset(tlv, 0, len); > + tlv->type = cpu_to_le16(IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT); > + tlv->len = cpu_to_le16(eht_len); > + > + eht = (struct ieee80211_radiotap_eht *)tlv->data; > + eht->known = cpu_to_le32(IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_KNOWN_GI); > + eht->data[0] = > + le32_encode_bits(rx_status->eht.gi, IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_DATA0_GI); > + > + eht->user_info[0] = > + cpu_to_le32(IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USER_INFO_MCS_KNOWN | > + IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USER_INFO_NSS_KNOWN_O); > + eht->user_info[0] |= > + le32_encode_bits(rx_status->rate_idx, IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USER_INFO_MCS) | > + le32_encode_bits(rx_status->nss, IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USER_INFO_NSS_O); > + > + /* U-SIG */ > + tlv = (void *)tlv + sizeof(*tlv) + ALIGN(eht_len, 4); > + tlv->type = cpu_to_le16(IEEE80211_RADIOTAP_EHT_USIG); > + tlv->len = cpu_to_le16(usig_len); > + > + bw = rx_status->bw < ARRAY_SIZE(rx_status_bw_to_radiotap_eht_usig) ? > + rx_status_bw_to_radiotap_eht_usig[rx_status->bw] : U8_MAX; > + if (bw == U8_MAX) > + return; This is cosmetics but I feel that 'if' statement is more readable than ':' operator: if (rx_status->bw >= ARRAY_SIZE(rx_status_bw_to_radiotap_eht_usig) return; bw = rx_status_bw_to_radiotap_eht_usig[rx_status->bw]; -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches