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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4661BC433E3 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B752065D for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="cYEYFIBa" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727908AbgGXJ0o (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:26:44 -0400 Received: from m43-7.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.7]:11540 "EHLO m43-7.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727819AbgGXJ0o (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 05:26:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1595582803; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=PWUaY6Sm47TrWhhqY/vQGmgr5aMiRKWAq4V+Ie/iH/U=; b=cYEYFIBap/9vmE9uokecZ30EXFvkLbcPmNNu+BHGFRhQTGDgxiLdunfI7oy0y6mE6LkZbxoV VvA3Bx/mOqWhaJzqNFALZZlcmizw0BtmeBy8peTUy5/mbnJTg64I+yenOhjV4rva+xueNMxs Bs0D6SjDLLzPtJqCMqRZW90KEeg= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.7 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI3YTAwOSIsICJsaW51eC13aXJlbGVzc0B2Z2VyLmtlcm5lbC5vcmciLCAiYmU5ZTRhIl0= Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n04.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5f1aa93deef925b694672fae (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:26:21 GMT Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9A478C433C9; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:26:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x230.qca.qualcomm.com (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7098C433CB; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:26:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org E7098C433CB Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Brian Norris Cc: Jouni Malinen , Johannes Berg , "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" , Pkshih , "ath10k\@lists.infradead.org" , Wen Gong Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: vendor-cmd: qca: add dynamic SAR power limits References: <1576684108-30177-1-git-send-email-kvalo@codeaurora.org> <1576684108-30177-2-git-send-email-kvalo@codeaurora.org> <1576748692.7758.17.camel@realtek.com> <20191219154828.GA12287@w1.fi> <20191219185522.GA16010@w1.fi> <871rpqly6a.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87lfjjx0o7.fsf@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:26:16 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Brian Norris's message of "Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:56:39 -0700") Message-ID: <87y2n9clhj.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Brian Norris writes: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:35 AM Kalle Valo wrote: >> Brian Norris writes: >> > Really, I could live with per-vendor APIs. My primary goal is to get >> > these upstream in some form, so vendors can stop using things like >> > this as a reason for shipping us non-upstream code, and so we can >> > reduce the delta between upstream and Chrome OS kernels. >> > >> > I also think that, for the cases that warrant it (i.e., the option 2 >> > -- Realtek and Qualcomm cases, so far), it would be good to have a >> > common API, but that's a somewhat secondary concern for me. >> >> So to me it feels like the best solution forward is to go with the >> vendor API, do you agree? We can, of course, later switch to the common >> API if we manage to create one which is usable for everyone. > > That's fine with me. That's pretty much what I said in my first email: > > "Anyway, I don't really object with starting out with a > Qualcomm-specific and a Realtek-specific vendor command to implement > nearly the same feature, but I'd prefer if people did engage in some > healthy discussion about why they can't share an API, with the hopes > that maybe they can converge someday." > > I think we've had some healthy (though very protracted) discussion, > and I don't think I've seen anyone bring up anything I wasn't already > aware of that would prevent eventual consolidation. As long as we > acknowledge those things (item 2 at > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api), > I'm happy. Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. >> > Also, Kalle had some concerns about stable ABI questions: shouldn't we >> > bake in some kind of "check for support" feature to these kinds of >> > APIs [3]? That would help ease transition, if we do start with a >> > vendor API and move to a common one in the future. >> >> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea but I don't think that should block >> these patches. > > OK, well it was your concern first, IIRC :) I was commenting about the "check for support" feature :) I think it would be a good idea to have userspace check what vendor interface features/commands are supported with that driver/hardware/firmware combo. But how should that be implemented? Should there be a some kind of generic mechanism used by all drivers or would each driver have their own method to check the supported features? I think that needs a separate discussion. > So what's next? A v2 that only needs a bit of updated description > about "why a vendor API"? I'm busy but hopefully Wen (CCed) can submit v2. Wen? > And Realtek can feel free to submit this [1] shortly? > [1] Series: rtw88: Add SAR implementation > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=238219&state=* Yeah, please submit that as well. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches