* [PATCH] cfg80211: only pass sband to set_mandatory_flags_band()
From: Arend van Spriel @ 2017-01-04 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg; +Cc: linux-wireless, Arend van Spriel
The supported band structure contains the band is applies to
so no need to pass it separately. Also added a default case
to the switch for completeness. The current code base does not
call this function with NUM_NL80211_BANDS but kept that case
statement although default case would cover that.
Signed-off-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
---
Stumbled upon this function and wanted to start the new year lightly.
It applies to master branch of mac80211-next repo.
Best wishes,
Arend
---
net/wireless/util.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/wireless/util.c b/net/wireless/util.c
index 2cf7df8..c91bc25 100644
--- a/net/wireless/util.c
+++ b/net/wireless/util.c
@@ -136,12 +136,11 @@ struct ieee80211_channel *ieee80211_get_channel(struct wiphy *wiphy, int freq)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ieee80211_get_channel);
-static void set_mandatory_flags_band(struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband,
- enum nl80211_band band)
+static void set_mandatory_flags_band(struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband)
{
int i, want;
- switch (band) {
+ switch (sband->band) {
case NL80211_BAND_5GHZ:
want = 3;
for (i = 0; i < sband->n_bitrates; i++) {
@@ -191,6 +190,7 @@ static void set_mandatory_flags_band(struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband,
WARN_ON((sband->ht_cap.mcs.rx_mask[0] & 0x1e) != 0x1e);
break;
case NUM_NL80211_BANDS:
+ default:
WARN_ON(1);
break;
}
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ void ieee80211_set_bitrate_flags(struct wiphy *wiphy)
for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++)
if (wiphy->bands[band])
- set_mandatory_flags_band(wiphy->bands[band], band);
+ set_mandatory_flags_band(wiphy->bands[band]);
}
bool cfg80211_supported_cipher_suite(struct wiphy *wiphy, u32 cipher)
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH next V2] brcmfmac: avoid writing channel out of allocated array
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend Van Spriel
Cc: Kalle Valo, Franky Lin, Hante Meuleman, Pieter-Paul Giesberts,
Franky Lin, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <f2f23dca-d5e6-b127-7fa1-ebebdcbf19be@broadcom.com>
On 4 January 2017 at 11:48, Arend Van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
> On 4-1-2017 11:40, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote:
>> On 4 January 2017 at 10:39, Arend Van Spriel
>> <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:
>>> On 3-1-2017 17:49, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote:
>>>> From: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
>>>> default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
>>>> result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. Thi=
s
>>>> never happened so far (we got a complete list of supported channels) b=
ut
>>>> it means possible memory corruption so we should handle it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> This patch simply detects unexpected channel and ignores it.
>>>>
>>>> As we don't try to create new entry now, it's also safe to drop hw_val=
ue
>>>> and center_freq assignment. For known channels we have these set anywa=
y.
>>>>
>>>> I decided to fix this issue by assigning NULL or a target channel to t=
he
>>>> channel variable. This was one of possible ways, I prefefred this one =
as
>>>> it also avoids using channel[index] over and over.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 58de92d2f95e ("brcmfmac: use static superset of channels for wi=
phy bands")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: Add extra comment in code for not-found channel.
>>>> Make it clear this problem have never been seen so far
>>>> Explain why it's safe to drop extra assignments
>>>> Note & reason changing channel variable usage
>>>> ---
>>>> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 32 ++++++++++++-=
---------
>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211=
.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>>> index 9c2c128..a16dd7b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>>> @@ -5825,7 +5825,6 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf=
_cfg80211_info *cfg,
>>>> u32 i, j;
>>>> u32 total;
>>>> u32 chaninfo;
>>>> - u32 index;
>>>>
>>>> pbuf =3D kzalloc(BRCMF_DCMD_MEDLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -5873,33 +5872,36 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brc=
mf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
>>>> ch.bw =3D=3D BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> - channel =3D band->channels;
>>>> - index =3D band->n_channels;
>>>> + channel =3D NULL;
>>>> for (j =3D 0; j < band->n_channels; j++) {
>>>> - if (channel[j].hw_value =3D=3D ch.control_ch_num=
) {
>>>> - index =3D j;
>>>> + if (band->channels[j].hw_value =3D=3D ch.control=
_ch_num) {
>>>> + channel =3D &band->channels[j];
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> - channel[index].center_freq =3D
>>>> - ieee80211_channel_to_frequency(ch.control_ch_num=
,
>>>> - band->band);
>>>> - channel[index].hw_value =3D ch.control_ch_num;
>>>> + if (!channel) {
>>>> + /* It seems firmware supports some channel we ne=
ver
>>>> + * considered. Something new in IEEE standard?
>>>> + */
>>>> + brcmf_err("Firmware reported unexpected channel =
%d\n",
>>>> + ch.control_ch_num);
>>>
>>> Maybe rephrase to "Ignoring unexpected firmware channel %d\n" so
>>> end-users are not alarmed by this error message. I think using
>>> brcmf_err() is justified, but you may even consider chiming down to
>>> brcmf_dbg(INFO, ...).
>>
>> Can you suggest a better error message? It seems I'm too brave and I
>> don't find this one alarming, so I need suggestion.
>
> Uhm. There is a suggestion above. :-p
... sorry, it seems I should take a break ;)
--=20
Rafa=C5=82
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH V3] brcmfmac: avoid writing channel out of allocated array
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kalle Valo
Cc: Arend van Spriel, Franky Lin, Hante Meuleman,
Pieter-Paul Giesberts, Franky Lin, linux-wireless,
brcm80211-dev-list.pdl, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170103164930.29989-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. This
never happened so far (we got a complete list of supported channels) but
it means possible memory corruption so we should handle it anyway.
This patch simply detects unexpected channel and ignores it.
As we don't try to create new entry now, it's also safe to drop hw_value
and center_freq assignment. For known channels we have these set anyway.
I decided to fix this issue by assigning NULL or a target channel to the
channel variable. This was one of possible ways, I prefefred this one as
it also avoids using channel[index] over and over.
Fixes: 58de92d2f95e ("brcmfmac: use static superset of channels for wiphy bands")
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
V2: Add extra comment in code for not-found channel.
Make it clear this problem have never been seen so far
Explain why it's safe to drop extra assignments
Note & reason changing channel variable usage
V3: Update error message as suggested by Arend.
---
.../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 32 ++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
index 9c2c128..75ef23b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
@@ -5825,7 +5825,6 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
u32 i, j;
u32 total;
u32 chaninfo;
- u32 index;
pbuf = kzalloc(BRCMF_DCMD_MEDLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -5873,33 +5872,36 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80)
continue;
- channel = band->channels;
- index = band->n_channels;
+ channel = NULL;
for (j = 0; j < band->n_channels; j++) {
- if (channel[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
- index = j;
+ if (band->channels[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
+ channel = &band->channels[j];
break;
}
}
- channel[index].center_freq =
- ieee80211_channel_to_frequency(ch.control_ch_num,
- band->band);
- channel[index].hw_value = ch.control_ch_num;
+ if (!channel) {
+ /* It seems firmware supports some channel we never
+ * considered. Something new in IEEE standard?
+ */
+ brcmf_err("Ignoring unexpected firmware channel %d\n",
+ ch.control_ch_num);
+ continue;
+ }
/* assuming the chanspecs order is HT20,
* HT40 upper, HT40 lower, and VHT80.
*/
if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80) {
- channel[index].flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
+ channel->flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
} else if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_40) {
- brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(&channel[index], &ch);
+ brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(channel, &ch);
} else {
/* enable the channel and disable other bandwidths
* for now as mentioned order assure they are enabled
* for subsequent chanspecs.
*/
- channel[index].flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
- IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
+ channel->flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
+ IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
ch.bw = BRCMU_CHAN_BW_20;
cfg->d11inf.encchspec(&ch);
chaninfo = ch.chspec;
@@ -5907,11 +5909,11 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
&chaninfo);
if (!err) {
if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_RADAR)
- channel[index].flags |=
+ channel->flags |=
(IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR |
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR);
if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_PASSIVE)
- channel[index].flags |=
+ channel->flags |=
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR;
}
}
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH V3] brcmfmac: avoid writing channel out of allocated array
From: Arend Van Spriel @ 2017-01-04 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki, Kalle Valo
Cc: Franky Lin, Hante Meuleman, Pieter-Paul Giesberts, Franky Lin,
linux-wireless, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170104110941.21261-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
On 4-1-2017 12:09, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
Not taking a break?
> Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
> default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
> result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. This
> never happened so far (we got a complete list of supported channels) but
> it means possible memory corruption so we should handle it anyway.
>
> This patch simply detects unexpected channel and ignores it.
>
> As we don't try to create new entry now, it's also safe to drop hw_value
> and center_freq assignment. For known channels we have these set anyway.
>
> I decided to fix this issue by assigning NULL or a target channel to the
> channel variable. This was one of possible ways, I prefefred this one as
> it also avoids using channel[index] over and over.
>
> Fixes: 58de92d2f95e ("brcmfmac: use static superset of channels for wiphy bands")
Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> V2: Add extra comment in code for not-found channel.
> Make it clear this problem have never been seen so far
> Explain why it's safe to drop extra assignments
> Note & reason changing channel variable usage
> V3: Update error message as suggested by Arend.
> ---
> .../broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 32 ++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
> index 9c2c128..75ef23b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
> @@ -5825,7 +5825,6 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
> u32 i, j;
> u32 total;
> u32 chaninfo;
> - u32 index;
>
> pbuf = kzalloc(BRCMF_DCMD_MEDLEN, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> @@ -5873,33 +5872,36 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
> ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80)
> continue;
>
> - channel = band->channels;
> - index = band->n_channels;
> + channel = NULL;
> for (j = 0; j < band->n_channels; j++) {
> - if (channel[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
> - index = j;
> + if (band->channels[j].hw_value == ch.control_ch_num) {
> + channel = &band->channels[j];
> break;
> }
> }
> - channel[index].center_freq =
> - ieee80211_channel_to_frequency(ch.control_ch_num,
> - band->band);
> - channel[index].hw_value = ch.control_ch_num;
> + if (!channel) {
> + /* It seems firmware supports some channel we never
> + * considered. Something new in IEEE standard?
> + */
> + brcmf_err("Ignoring unexpected firmware channel %d\n",
> + ch.control_ch_num);
> + continue;
> + }
>
> /* assuming the chanspecs order is HT20,
> * HT40 upper, HT40 lower, and VHT80.
> */
> if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_80) {
> - channel[index].flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
> + channel->flags &= ~IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
> } else if (ch.bw == BRCMU_CHAN_BW_40) {
> - brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(&channel[index], &ch);
> + brcmf_update_bw40_channel_flag(channel, &ch);
> } else {
> /* enable the channel and disable other bandwidths
> * for now as mentioned order assure they are enabled
> * for subsequent chanspecs.
> */
> - channel[index].flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
> - IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
> + channel->flags = IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40 |
> + IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ;
> ch.bw = BRCMU_CHAN_BW_20;
> cfg->d11inf.encchspec(&ch);
> chaninfo = ch.chspec;
> @@ -5907,11 +5909,11 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
> &chaninfo);
> if (!err) {
> if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_RADAR)
> - channel[index].flags |=
> + channel->flags |=
> (IEEE80211_CHAN_RADAR |
> IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR);
> if (chaninfo & WL_CHAN_PASSIVE)
> - channel[index].flags |=
> + channel->flags |=
> IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_IR;
> }
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki, linux-wireless
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel,
Arnd Bergmann, devicetree, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170103225715.14072-3-zajec5@gmail.com>
> V4: Move code to of.c
> Use one helper called at init time (no runtime hooks)
> Modify orig_flags
> +/**
> + * wiphy_read_of_freq_limits - read frequency limits from device
> tree
> + *
> + * @wiphy: the wireless device to get extra limits for
> + *
> + * Some devices may have extra limitations specified in DT. This may
> be useful
> + * for chipsets that normally support more bands but are limited due
> to board
> + * design (e.g. by antennas or extermal power amplifier).
> + *
> + * This function reads info from DT and uses it to *modify* channels
> (disable
> + * unavailable ones). It's usually a *bad* idea to use it in drivers
> with
> + * shared channel data as DT limitations are device specific.
> + *
> + * As this function access device node it has to be called after
> set_wiphy_dev.
> + * It also modifies channels so they have to be set first.
> + */
It should also be called before wiphy_register(), I think? And I
suppose you should add a comment about not being able to use shared
channels.
> + pr_debug("Disabling freq %d MHz as
> it's out of OF limits\n",
> + chan->center_freq);
> + chan->orig_flags |=
> IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED;
>
But just setting orig_flags also won't work, since it'd be overwritten
again by wiphy_register(), no?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] RFC: Universal scan proposal
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Shmidt; +Cc: Arend Van Spriel, linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <CAH7ZN-zm-CUv=QzoUojdyrcONRAHtTG18PiwGZ4sYY0qqft1BA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:45 -0800, Dmitry Shmidt wrote:
>
> We can either use alternative structure in kernel wireless stack,
> or alternative structure in userspace (in wpa_supplicant), and we
> will most likely need special command for this case at least to
> retrieve results.
Yes, I tend to agree - we need to have some new structure (and netlink
attributes etc.) to report the aggregated/partial results. But it seems
to me that it'll have to be very obvious which way of obtaining results
must be used for a given scan?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cfg80211: Add support to sched scan to report better BSSs
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arend Van Spriel, Malinen, Jouni
Cc: Vamsi, Krishna, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <c807ce00-46bb-e214-8bef-3544e301aad6@broadcom.com>
> Also I don't see the array issue. @relative_rssi_5g_pref with s8
> value seems same as @rssi_adjust with (band=5g, s8 value) packed
> together. Or am I missing something here.
Jouni is arguing that if you can specify which band to adjust, you
might want to adjust more than one band - and need an array of
(band,adjustment) rather than just a single such tuple.
But if we introduce this attribute with the tuple now, we can extend it
to an array of tuples later if we really need that.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cfg80211: Add support to sched scan to report better BSSs
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Malinen, Jouni
Cc: Arend Van Spriel, Vamsi, Krishna, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20161220205221.GB9756@jouni.qca.qualcomm.com>
On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 20:52 +0000, Malinen, Jouni wrote:
> > I think between that (unless we add that, we could technically
> > extend flag attributes to allow them being an int as well, or add a
> > new one) and the fact that the device may not support different
> > relative RSSI matches in different matchsets, I'm almost convinced
> > that adding new attributes is better.
>
> I'm not completely sure how to interpret all this and also the last
> email from Arend in this thread. Could either (or both :) of you
> providemore detailed suggestion on what exactly you would like us to
> change, if anything, in the attribute design now so that we can try
> to close on this?
I guess I'm thinking out loud too much :-)
Moving to the (band,adjustment) struct thing, like we have it in the
BSS select now, would be good I think - instead of the single value
that has the band hardcoded in the name. It's fairly useless with just
two bands since you can adjust one or the other to achieve the same
result, but for consistency it'd be good.
And then doing a match attribute we more or less discarded here, so
conceptually nothing else really changes.
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH V5 4/3] brcmfmac: use wiphy_read_of_freq_limits to respect extra limits
From: Rob Herring @ 2017-01-04 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki
Cc: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless, Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau,
Arend van Spriel, Arnd Bergmann, devicetree,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170103225715.14072-4-zajec5@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 11:57:15PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>
> There are some devices (e.g. Netgear R8000 home router) with one chipset
> model used for different radios, some of them limited to subbands. NVRAM
> entries don't contain any extra info on such limitations and firmware
> reports full list of channels to us. We need to store extra limitation
> info on DT to support such devices properly.
This is the type of explanation that I'm looking for in the DT patch as
well as the examples of where this data comes from now. Certainly, I
think having per platform settings in userspace is not what you want.
Rob
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency properties
From: Kalle Valo @ 2017-01-04 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki
Cc: Rob Herring, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Martin Blumenstingl,
Felix Fietkau, Arnd Bergmann, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <CACna6rxmgN2zz-Fc1-Uu02oqMQreNkMJt0jGjLOMrXM=6iujFw@mail.gmail.com>
Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3 January 2017 at 20:55, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote:
>>> From: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>
>>> This new file should be used for properties handled at higher level and
>>> so usable with all drivers.
>>
>> Why is this needed? Where would this data normally come from?
>
> Vendors limit choice of channels at their web user interface level. I
> want to do better and report proper channels directly at kernel level
> instead of masking them in every possible configuration tool.
Why do vendors limit the channels? Is it because of a hardware
limitation (antenna does not support, or not calibrated, for a certain
band etc) or something else?
--=20
Kalle Valo
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency properties
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kalle Valo
Cc: Rob Herring, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Martin Blumenstingl,
Felix Fietkau, Arnd Bergmann, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <874m1ej3oz.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
On 4 January 2017 at 15:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3 January 2017 at 20:55, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki wrote=
:
>>>> From: Rafa=C5=82 Mi=C5=82ecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>
>>>> This new file should be used for properties handled at higher level an=
d
>>>> so usable with all drivers.
>>>
>>> Why is this needed? Where would this data normally come from?
>>
>> Vendors limit choice of channels at their web user interface level. I
>> want to do better and report proper channels directly at kernel level
>> instead of masking them in every possible configuration tool.
>
> Why do vendors limit the channels? Is it because of a hardware
> limitation (antenna does not support, or not calibrated, for a certain
> band etc) or something else?
Please review & comment on the latest version, currently V5:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9495795/
"This can be used to specify extra hardware limitations caused by e.g.
used antennas or power amplifiers."
--=20
Rafa=C5=82
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Can't authenticate to WPA network with rt2800usb driver
From: Stanislaw Gruszka @ 2017-01-04 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xavier Bestel; +Cc: linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <1483526270.8560.70.camel@free.fr>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 11:37:50AM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav wpa_supplicant[13666]: wlx7cdd90463ef8: SME: Trying to authenticate with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 (SSID='MySecretSSID' freq=2437 MHz)
> Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.972360] wlx7cdd90463ef8: authenticate with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3
> Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav NetworkManager[15150]: <info> [1483525349.3774] device (wlx7cdd90463ef8): supplicant interface state: inactive -> authenticating
> Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.990588] wlx7cdd90463ef8: send auth to 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 (try 1/3)
> Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.999983] wlx7cdd90463ef8: authenticated
> Jan 4 11:22:34 pcxav kernel: [2921140.991625] wlx7cdd90463ef8: aborting authentication with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 by local choice (Reason: 3=DEAUTH_LEAVING)
This looks like problem when wpa_supplicant do not talk to correct
kernel socket when cfg80211 module was removed and then loaded again.
This can happen when you remove wireless device driver using
modprobe -r i.e:
modprobe -r rt2800usb
modprobe rt2800pci
This problem is fixed in current version of wpa_supplicant or maybe
in kernel.
> Does anyone have a hint to make it work ?
"systemctl restart wpa_supplicant.service" recovers from bad state.
Stanislaw
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: ath10k mesh error 80MHz channel
From: Matteo Grandi @ 2017-01-04 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thiagarajan, Vasanthakumar; +Cc: LinuxWireless Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <585CB390.2010207@qti.qualcomm.com>
Hi Vasanth,
Thanks for the hint!
My version of iw (4.9 October2016) didn't provide any support for the
cac parameter, so I needed to checkout the latest git version as you
suggested.
Sometimes I receive the error "invalid argument (-22)" while
performing sudo iw wlanX cac trigger channel 52 80MHZ, but it seems to
happen randomly.
Thanks a lot!
Matteo
2016-12-23 6:18 GMT+01:00 Thiagarajan, Vasanthakumar
<vthiagar@qti.qualcomm.com>:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2016 08:51 PM, Matteo Grandi wrote:
>> Hi all again, just an update to the previous message:
>>
>> looking at iw list I found this situation:
>>
>> Frequencies:
>> * 5180 MHz [36] (20.0 dBm)
>> * 5200 MHz [40] (20.0 dBm)
>> * 5220 MHz [44] (20.0 dBm)
>> * 5240 MHz [48] (20.0 dBm)
>> * 5260 MHz [52] (20.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5280 MHz [56] (20.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5300 MHz [60] (20.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5320 MHz [64] (20.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5500 MHz [100] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5520 MHz [104] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5540 MHz [108] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5560 MHz [112] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5580 MHz [116] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5600 MHz [120] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5620 MHz [124] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5640 MHz [128] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5660 MHz [132] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5680 MHz [136] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5700 MHz [140] (23.0 dBm) (no IR, radar detection)
>> * 5745 MHz [149] (disabled)
>> * 5765 MHz [153] (disabled)
>> * 5785 MHz [157] (disabled)
>> * 5805 MHz [161] (disabled)
>> * 5825 MHz [165] (disabled)
>> Supported commands:
>> * new_interface
>> * set_interface
>> * new_key
>>
>> The no Initial Radiation prevent the interface to start transmitting.
>> I'm almost sure that it's a regulatory domain issue, but i already
>> tried to reinstall the CRD Agent, and even changing the regulatory
>> domain it change only the global (i.e. CH) while the iw list provide
>> the same results.
>> root@MrProper:~# iw reg get
>> global
>> country CH: DFS-ETSI
>> (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (N/A, 20), (N/A)
>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 20), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 20), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> (5490 - 5710 @ 160), (N/A, 27), (0 ms), DFS
>> (57000 - 66000 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>
>> phy#1
>> country US: DFS-FCC
>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>
>> phy#0
>> country US: DFS-FCC
>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>
>> phy#2
>> country US: DFS-FCC
>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>
>> Is there a way to remove the no IR flags in the allowed channels?
>
>
> I assume you are trying to bring up mesh on one of DFS channels where
> CAC is mandatory before starting the operation. Perhaps try completing
> CAC on the channel and bring up mesh.
>
> If you want to operate mesh network on channel 52 with 80 Mhz bandwidth,
> you may need to run cac something like below from iw (a recent one which has
> support to trigger CAC).
>
> sudo iw wlanX cac trigger channel 52 80MHZ
>
>
> Vasanth
>
>>
>> 2016-12-21 15:19 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grandi <iu5bdp@gmail.com>:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'm configuring a simple mesh network using four miniPCIe adapters
>>> (Compex WLE900VX) on two Gateworks Ventana 5410 boards.
>>> Actually, based on the guide
>>> https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/users/drivers/ath10k/mesh
>>> I don't have any problem setting up the mesh network on channels 36,
>>> 149, 153, respectively 5180 80 5210, 5745 80 5775, and 5765 80 5795
>>> (even if MIMO is not working).
>>>
>>> But while configuring the interfaces to work in 80MHz channel
>>> bandwidth (802.11ac using ath10k driver) on a different channel I
>>> bump into the error:
>>>
>>> command failed: Invalid argument (-22)
>>>
>>> immediately after launching the command for joining the mesh: iw dev
>>> <if_name> mesh join <mesh_name>.
>>>
>>> The syslog provide only this:
>>>
>>> Dec 21 13:52:03 MrProper kernel: [ 7257.058617] util.c |
>>> ieee80211_set_wmm_default: ac=0, enable_qos=true, vif.type=7,
>>> NL80211_IFTYPE_STATION=2
>>> Dec 21 13:52:03 MrProper kernel: [ 7257.059654] IPv6:
>>> ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): mpp1: link is not ready
>>> Dec 21 13:52:03 MrProper kernel: [ 7257.205911] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:03 MrProper kernel: [ 7257.581898] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:03 MrProper kernel: [ 7257.613627] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:04 MrProper kernel: [ 7258.084733] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:04 MrProper kernel: [ 7258.180963] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:04 MrProper kernel: [ 7258.325382] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:04 MrProper kernel: [ 7258.661534] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:05 MrProper kernel: [ 7259.029525] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:05 MrProper kernel: [ 7259.392563] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:08 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.386101] ath10k_warn: 18
>>> callbacks suppressed
>>> Dec 21 13:52:08 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.386154] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.737520] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.785597] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.971144] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7262.981414] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7263.091578] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7263.445603] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7263.458727] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7263.582180] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:09 MrProper kernel: [ 7263.589649] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:14 MrProper kernel: [ 7267.742838] ath10k_warn: 44
>>> callbacks suppressed
>>> Dec 21 13:52:14 MrProper kernel: [ 7267.742887] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel configured; ignoring frame(s)!
>>> Dec 21 13:52:14 MrProper kernel: [ 7267.744466] ath10k_pci
>>> 0000:07:00.0: no channel
>>>
>>> Did someone have a similar issue?
>>> Are there, maybe, some channels that even present in the regulatory
>>> domain with the @80 flags are not configurable in this way? (36, 52,
>>> 100, 116, 132, 149 should be ok, but only 36 and 149 work)
>>> Or maybe it's my reg-domain issue (see below)?
>>>
>>> root@MrProper:~# iw reg get
>>> global
>>> country US: DFS-FCC
>>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>>
>>> phy#1
>>> country US: DFS-FCC
>>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>>
>>> phy#0
>>> country US: DFS-FCC
>>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>>
>>> phy#2
>>> country US: DFS-FCC
>>> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (N/A), AUTO-BW
>>> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS, AUTO-BW
>>> (5490 - 5730 @ 160), (N/A, 23), (0 ms), DFS
>>> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (N/A, 30), (N/A)
>>> (57240 - 63720 @ 2160), (N/A, 40), (N/A)
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for every hint!
>>>
>>> Matteo
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v4] cfg80211: NL80211_ATTR_SOCKET_OWNER support for CMD_CONNECT
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Zaborowski, linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <20161218002554.6362-1-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
> +++ b/net/wireless/mlme.c
> @@ -340,6 +340,8 @@ int cfg80211_mlme_deauth(struct
> cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
>
> ASSERT_WDEV_LOCK(wdev);
>
> + wdev->conn_owner_nlportid = 0;
Is this really correct? The deauth might not be to the current_bss, as
you can see in the following if statement:
> if (local_state_change &&
> (!wdev->current_bss ||
> !ether_addr_equal(wdev->current_bss->pub.bssid, bssid)))
It seems that perhaps this should go into some other place, perhaps
only be reset when current_bss is also reset to NULL?
> @@ -14539,13 +14554,21 @@ static int nl80211_netlink_notify(struct
> notifier_block * nb,
> spin_unlock(&rdev-
> >destroy_list_lock);
> schedule_work(&rdev->destroy_work);
> }
> - } else if (schedule_scan_stop) {
> +
> + continue;
> + }
This also doesn't seem right - the same socket could possibly own both
an interface and a connection? If the connection is on the same
interface you might not really want to do both - though it shouldn't
hurt if all the cancel_work is in the right place - but it could be a
different interface?
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mac80211: Pass new RSSI level in CQM RSSI notification
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Zaborowski, linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <20161212015155.21272-1-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
I think this ought to have some commit log explaining a bit what this
is about :-)
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cfg80211: Accept multiple RSSI thresholds for CQM
From: Johannes Berg @ 2017-01-04 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Zaborowski, linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <20161212015213.21323-3-andrew.zaborowski@intel.com>
Should userspace really just get -EOPNOTSUPP back?
Also, this whole business with using an array in the existing
NL80211_ATTR_CQM_RSSI_THOLD is not very backward compatible, because an
old kernel would interpret this as just a single value (the first one
in your array) - ignoring entirely the fact that you requested
multiple.
Thus, you either need an nl80211 protocol feature bit (enum
nl80211_protocol_features) or a new attribute, or so, I think.
> + cqm_config = kzalloc(sizeof(struct
> cfg80211_cqm_config) +
> + n_thresholds * sizeof(s32),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> + cqm_config->rssi_hyst = hysteresis;
You definitely need error checking here :)
johannes
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Can't authenticate to WPA network with rt2800usb driver
From: Xavier Bestel @ 2017-01-04 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stanislaw Gruszka; +Cc: linux-wireless
In-Reply-To: <20170104150243.GA11582@redhat.com>
Le mercredi 04 janvier 2017 à 16:02 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 11:37:50AM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav wpa_supplicant[13666]: wlx7cdd90463ef8: SME: Trying to authenticate with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 (SSID='MySecretSSID' freq=2437 MHz)
> > Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.972360] wlx7cdd90463ef8: authenticate with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3
> > Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav NetworkManager[15150]: <info> [1483525349.3774] device (wlx7cdd90463ef8): supplicant interface state: inactive -> authenticating
> > Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.990588] wlx7cdd90463ef8: send auth to 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 (try 1/3)
> > Jan 4 11:22:29 pcxav kernel: [2921135.999983] wlx7cdd90463ef8: authenticated
> > Jan 4 11:22:34 pcxav kernel: [2921140.991625] wlx7cdd90463ef8: aborting authentication with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 by local choice (Reason: 3=DEAUTH_LEAVING)
>
> This looks like problem when wpa_supplicant do not talk to correct
> kernel socket when cfg80211 module was removed and then loaded again.
> This can happen when you remove wireless device driver using
> modprobe -r i.e:
>
> modprobe -r rt2800usb
> modprobe rt2800pci
>
> This problem is fixed in current version of wpa_supplicant or maybe
> in kernel.
>
> > Does anyone have a hint to make it work ?
>
> "systemctl restart wpa_supplicant.service" recovers from bad state.
I just upgraded wpa_supplicant from 2.5 to 2.6 (latest version AFAIK)
and restarted it but still no luck:
Jan 4 17:01:19 pcxav kernel: [2941466.617276] wlx7cdd90463ef8: aborting authentication with 5c:33:8e:56:78:d3 by local choice (Reason: 3=DEAUTH_LEAVING)
Do you know which kernel should I run to have the fix ?
Regards,
Xav
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Martin Blumenstingl,
Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel, Arnd Bergmann,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <1483536406.7312.3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On 4 January 2017 at 14:26, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote=
:
>
>> V4: Move code to of.c
>> Use one helper called at init time (no runtime hooks)
>> Modify orig_flags
>
>
>> +/**
>> + * wiphy_read_of_freq_limits - read frequency limits from device
>> tree
>> + *
>> + * @wiphy: the wireless device to get extra limits for
>> + *
>> + * Some devices may have extra limitations specified in DT. This may
>> be useful
>> + * for chipsets that normally support more bands but are limited due
>> to board
>> + * design (e.g. by antennas or extermal power amplifier).
>> + *
>> + * This function reads info from DT and uses it to *modify* channels
>> (disable
>> + * unavailable ones). It's usually a *bad* idea to use it in drivers
>> with
>> + * shared channel data as DT limitations are device specific.
>> + *
>> + * As this function access device node it has to be called after
>> set_wiphy_dev.
>> + * It also modifies channels so they have to be set first.
>> + */
>
> It should also be called before wiphy_register(), I think? And I
> suppose you should add a comment about not being able to use shared
> channels.
>
>> + pr_debug("Disabling freq %d MHz as
>> it's out of OF limits\n",
>> + chan->center_freq);
>> + chan->orig_flags |=3D
>> IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED;
>>
> But just setting orig_flags also won't work, since it'd be overwritten
> again by wiphy_register(), no?
I told you I successfully tested it, didn't I? Well, I quickly checked
wiphy_register and couldn't understand how it was possible it worked
for me...
OK, so after some debugging I understood why I got this working. It's
the way brcmfmac handles channels.
At the beginning all channels are disabled: see __wl_2ghz_channels &
__wl_5ghz_channels. They have IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED set in "flags"
for every channel.
In early phase brcmfmac calls wiphy_read_of_freq_limits which sets
IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in "orig_flags" for unavailable channels.
Then brcmf_construct_chaninfo kicks in. Normally it removes
IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED from "flags" for most of channels, but it
doesn't happen anymore due to my change:
if (channel->orig_flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
continue;
Then brcmfmac calls wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory which sets some bits
like IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_80MHZ and IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_160MHZ in "flags".
Finally wiphy_register is called which copies "flags" to
"original_flags". As brcmfmac /respected/ IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED set
in orig_flags, it also left IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in flags. This way
I got IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in orig_flags after overwriting that
field inside wiphy_register.
That's quite crazy, right?
I guess you're right after all, I should set IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED
in "flags" field, let wiphy_register copy that to "orig_flags" and
sanitize brcmfmac.
--=20
Rafa=C5=82
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH V6 2/3] cfg80211: move function checking range fit to util.c
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel,
Arnd Bergmann, devicetree, Rob Herring, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170104175832.25996-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
It is needed for another cfg80211 helper that will be out of reg.c so
move it to common util.c file and make it non-static.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
V5: Add this patch as suggested by Arend
---
net/wireless/core.h | 3 +++
net/wireless/reg.c | 27 +++++++--------------------
net/wireless/util.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/wireless/core.h b/net/wireless/core.h
index af6e023..bc8ba6e 100644
--- a/net/wireless/core.h
+++ b/net/wireless/core.h
@@ -430,6 +430,9 @@ int cfg80211_change_iface(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
void cfg80211_process_rdev_events(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev);
void cfg80211_process_wdev_events(struct wireless_dev *wdev);
+bool cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(const struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_range,
+ u32 center_freq_khz, u32 bw_khz);
+
/**
* cfg80211_chandef_dfs_usable - checks if chandef is DFS usable
* @wiphy: the wiphy to validate against
diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c
index 5dbac37..753efcd 100644
--- a/net/wireless/reg.c
+++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
@@ -748,21 +748,6 @@ static bool is_valid_rd(const struct ieee80211_regdomain *rd)
return true;
}
-static bool reg_does_bw_fit(const struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_range,
- u32 center_freq_khz, u32 bw_khz)
-{
- u32 start_freq_khz, end_freq_khz;
-
- start_freq_khz = center_freq_khz - (bw_khz/2);
- end_freq_khz = center_freq_khz + (bw_khz/2);
-
- if (start_freq_khz >= freq_range->start_freq_khz &&
- end_freq_khz <= freq_range->end_freq_khz)
- return true;
-
- return false;
-}
-
/**
* freq_in_rule_band - tells us if a frequency is in a frequency band
* @freq_range: frequency rule we want to query
@@ -1070,7 +1055,7 @@ freq_reg_info_regd(u32 center_freq,
if (!band_rule_found)
band_rule_found = freq_in_rule_band(fr, center_freq);
- bw_fits = reg_does_bw_fit(fr, center_freq, bw);
+ bw_fits = cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(fr, center_freq, bw);
if (band_rule_found && bw_fits)
return rr;
@@ -1138,11 +1123,13 @@ static uint32_t reg_rule_to_chan_bw_flags(const struct ieee80211_regdomain *regd
max_bandwidth_khz = reg_get_max_bandwidth(regd, reg_rule);
/* If we get a reg_rule we can assume that at least 5Mhz fit */
- if (!reg_does_bw_fit(freq_range, MHZ_TO_KHZ(chan->center_freq),
- MHZ_TO_KHZ(10)))
+ if (!cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(freq_range,
+ MHZ_TO_KHZ(chan->center_freq),
+ MHZ_TO_KHZ(10)))
bw_flags |= IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_10MHZ;
- if (!reg_does_bw_fit(freq_range, MHZ_TO_KHZ(chan->center_freq),
- MHZ_TO_KHZ(20)))
+ if (!cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(freq_range,
+ MHZ_TO_KHZ(chan->center_freq),
+ MHZ_TO_KHZ(20)))
bw_flags |= IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_20MHZ;
if (max_bandwidth_khz < MHZ_TO_KHZ(10))
diff --git a/net/wireless/util.c b/net/wireless/util.c
index 2cf7df8..62dc214 100644
--- a/net/wireless/util.c
+++ b/net/wireless/util.c
@@ -1847,6 +1847,21 @@ void cfg80211_free_nan_func(struct cfg80211_nan_func *f)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfg80211_free_nan_func);
+bool cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(const struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_range,
+ u32 center_freq_khz, u32 bw_khz)
+{
+ u32 start_freq_khz, end_freq_khz;
+
+ start_freq_khz = center_freq_khz - (bw_khz / 2);
+ end_freq_khz = center_freq_khz + (bw_khz / 2);
+
+ if (start_freq_khz >= freq_range->start_freq_khz &&
+ end_freq_khz <= freq_range->end_freq_khz)
+ return true;
+
+ return false;
+}
+
/* See IEEE 802.1H for LLC/SNAP encapsulation/decapsulation */
/* Ethernet-II snap header (RFC1042 for most EtherTypes) */
const unsigned char rfc1042_header[] __aligned(2) =
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH V6 1/3] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency limit property
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel,
Arnd Bergmann, devicetree, Rob Herring, Rafał Miłecki
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
This new file should be used for properties that apply to all wireless
devices.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
V2: Switch to a single ieee80211-freq-limit property that allows specifying
*multiple* ranges. This resolves problem with more complex rules as pointed
by Felx.
Make description implementation agnostic as pointed by Arend.
Rename node to wifi as suggested by Martin.
V3: Use more real-life frequencies in the example.
V5: Describe hardware design as possible use for this property
V6: Even better property description, thanks Rob for your help!
---
.../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f6442b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Common IEEE 802.11 properties
+
+This provides documentation of common properties that are valid for all wireless
+devices.
+
+Optional properties:
+ - ieee80211-freq-limit : list of supported frequency ranges in KHz. This can be
+ used for devices that in a given config support less channels than
+ normally. It may happen chipset supports a wide wireless band but it is
+ limited to some part of it due to used antennas or power amplifier.
+ An example case for this can be tri-band wireless router with two
+ identical chipsets used for two different 5 GHz subbands. Using them
+ incorrectly could not work or decrease performance noticeably.
+
+Example:
+
+pcie@0,0 {
+ reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
+ wifi@0,0 {
+ reg = <0x0000 0 0 0 0>;
+ ieee80211-freq-limit = <2402000 2482000>,
+ <5170000 5250000>;
+ };
+};
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH V6 4/3] brcmfmac: use wiphy_read_of_freq_limits to respect extra limits
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel,
Arnd Bergmann, devicetree, Rob Herring, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170104175832.25996-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
There are some devices (e.g. Netgear R8000 home router) with one chipset
model used for different radios, some of them limited to subbands. NVRAM
entries don't contain any extra info on such limitations and firmware
reports full list of channels to us. We need to store extra limitation
info in DT to support such devices properly.
Now there is a cfg80211 helper for reading such info use it in brcmfmac.
This patch adds check for channel being disabled with orig_flags which
is how this wiphy helper and wiphy_register work.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
This patch should probably go through wireless-driver-next which is why
it got weird number 4/3. I'm sending it just as a proof of concept.
It was succesfully tested on SmartRG SR400ac with BCM43602.
V4: Respect IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in orig_flags
V5: Update commit message
V6: Call wiphy_read_of_freq_limits after brcmf_setup_wiphybands to make it work
with helper setting "flags" instead of "orig_flags".
---
drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
index ccae3bb..a008ba5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
@@ -5886,6 +5886,9 @@ static int brcmf_construct_chaninfo(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg,
band->band);
channel[index].hw_value = ch.control_ch_num;
+ if (channel->orig_flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
+ continue;
+
/* assuming the chanspecs order is HT20,
* HT40 upper, HT40 lower, and VHT80.
*/
@@ -6478,7 +6481,11 @@ static int brcmf_setup_wiphy(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct brcmf_if *ifp)
}
}
err = brcmf_setup_wiphybands(wiphy);
- return err;
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+ wiphy_read_of_freq_limits(wiphy);
+
+ return 0;
}
static s32 brcmf_config_dongle(struct brcmf_cfg80211_info *cfg)
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* [PATCH V6 3/3] cfg80211: support ieee80211-freq-limit DT property
From: Rafał Miłecki @ 2017-01-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau, Arend van Spriel,
Arnd Bergmann, devicetree, Rob Herring, Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170104175832.25996-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
This patch adds a helper for reading that new property and applying
limitations of supported channels specified this way.
It is used with devices that normally support a wide wireless band but
in a given config are limited to some part of it (usually due to board
design). For example a dual-band chipset may be able to support one band
only because of used antennas.
It's also common that tri-band routers have separated radios for lower
and higher part of 5 GHz band and it may be impossible to say which is
which without a DT info.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
---
V2: Put main code in core.c as it isn't strictly part of regulatory - pointed
by Arend.
Update to support ieee80211-freq-limit (new property).
V3: Introduce separated wiphy_read_of_freq_limits function.
Add extra sanity checks for DT data.
Move code back to reg.c as suggested by Johannes.
V4: Move code to of.c
Use one helper called at init time (no runtime hooks)
Modify orig_flags
V5: Make wiphy_read_of_freq_limits return void as there isn't much point of
handling errors.
V6: Set IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED in "flags" instead of "orig_flags" as they will
be copied during wiphy_register. Also improve description & note that helper
has to be called before wiphy_register.
---
include/net/cfg80211.h | 28 ++++++++++
net/wireless/Makefile | 1 +
net/wireless/of.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 167 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 net/wireless/of.c
diff --git a/include/net/cfg80211.h b/include/net/cfg80211.h
index ca2ac1c..30841a9 100644
--- a/include/net/cfg80211.h
+++ b/include/net/cfg80211.h
@@ -311,6 +311,34 @@ struct ieee80211_supported_band {
struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap;
};
+/**
+ * wiphy_read_of_freq_limits - read frequency limits from device tree
+ *
+ * @wiphy: the wireless device to get extra limits for
+ *
+ * Some devices may have extra limitations specified in DT. This may be useful
+ * for chipsets that normally support more bands but are limited due to board
+ * design (e.g. by antennas or external power amplifier).
+ *
+ * This function reads info from DT and uses it to *modify* channels (disable
+ * unavailable ones). It's usually a *bad* idea to use it in drivers with
+ * shared channel data as DT limitations are device specific. You should make
+ * sure to call it only if channels in wiphy are copied and can be modified
+ * without affecting other devices.
+ *
+ * As this function access device node it has to be called after set_wiphy_dev.
+ * It also modifies channels so they have to be set first.
+ * If using this helper, call it before wiphy_register.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+void wiphy_read_of_freq_limits(struct wiphy *wiphy);
+#else /* CONFIG_OF */
+static inline void wiphy_read_of_freq_limits(struct wiphy *wiphy)
+{
+}
+#endif /* !CONFIG_OF */
+
+
/*
* Wireless hardware/device configuration structures and methods
*/
diff --git a/net/wireless/Makefile b/net/wireless/Makefile
index 4c9e39f..95b4c09 100644
--- a/net/wireless/Makefile
+++ b/net/wireless/Makefile
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV) += wext-priv.o
cfg80211-y += core.o sysfs.o radiotap.o util.o reg.o scan.o nl80211.o
cfg80211-y += mlme.o ibss.o sme.o chan.o ethtool.o mesh.o ap.o trace.o ocb.o
+cfg80211-$(CONFIG_OF) += of.o
cfg80211-$(CONFIG_CFG80211_DEBUGFS) += debugfs.o
cfg80211-$(CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT) += wext-compat.o wext-sme.o
cfg80211-$(CONFIG_CFG80211_INTERNAL_REGDB) += regdb.o
diff --git a/net/wireless/of.c b/net/wireless/of.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..de221f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/wireless/of.c
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2017 Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
+ *
+ * Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
+ * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
+ * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
+ *
+ * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
+ * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+ * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
+ * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
+ * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
+ * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
+ * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <net/cfg80211.h>
+#include "core.h"
+
+static bool wiphy_freq_limits_valid_chan(struct wiphy *wiphy,
+ struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_limits,
+ unsigned int n_freq_limits,
+ struct ieee80211_channel *chan)
+{
+ u32 bw = MHZ_TO_KHZ(20);
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < n_freq_limits; i++) {
+ struct ieee80211_freq_range *limit = &freq_limits[i];
+
+ if (cfg80211_does_bw_fit_range(limit,
+ MHZ_TO_KHZ(chan->center_freq),
+ bw))
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
+static void wiphy_freq_limits_apply(struct wiphy *wiphy,
+ struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_limits,
+ unsigned int n_freq_limits)
+{
+ enum nl80211_band band;
+ int i;
+
+ if (WARN_ON(!n_freq_limits))
+ return;
+
+ for (band = 0; band < NUM_NL80211_BANDS; band++) {
+ struct ieee80211_supported_band *sband = wiphy->bands[band];
+
+ if (!sband)
+ continue;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < sband->n_channels; i++) {
+ struct ieee80211_channel *chan = &sband->channels[i];
+
+ if (chan->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED)
+ continue;
+
+ if (!wiphy_freq_limits_valid_chan(wiphy, freq_limits,
+ n_freq_limits,
+ chan)) {
+ pr_debug("Disabling freq %d MHz as it's out of OF limits\n",
+ chan->center_freq);
+ chan->flags |= IEEE80211_CHAN_DISABLED;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+void wiphy_read_of_freq_limits(struct wiphy *wiphy)
+{
+ struct device *dev = wiphy_dev(wiphy);
+ struct device_node *np;
+ struct property *prop;
+ struct ieee80211_freq_range *freq_limits;
+ unsigned int n_freq_limits;
+ const __be32 *p;
+ int len, i;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ if (!dev)
+ return;
+ np = dev_of_node(dev);
+ if (!np)
+ return;
+
+ prop = of_find_property(np, "ieee80211-freq-limit", &len);
+ if (!prop)
+ return;
+
+ if (!len || len % sizeof(u32) || len / sizeof(u32) % 2) {
+ dev_err(dev, "ieee80211-freq-limit wrong format");
+ return;
+ }
+ n_freq_limits = len / sizeof(u32) / 2;
+
+ freq_limits = kcalloc(n_freq_limits, sizeof(*freq_limits), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!freq_limits) {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out_kfree;
+ }
+
+ p = NULL;
+ for (i = 0; i < n_freq_limits; i++) {
+ struct ieee80211_freq_range *limit = &freq_limits[i];
+
+ p = of_prop_next_u32(prop, p, &limit->start_freq_khz);
+ if (!p) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_kfree;
+ }
+
+ p = of_prop_next_u32(prop, p, &limit->end_freq_khz);
+ if (!p) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_kfree;
+ }
+
+ if (!limit->start_freq_khz ||
+ !limit->end_freq_khz ||
+ limit->start_freq_khz >= limit->end_freq_khz) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_kfree;
+ }
+ }
+
+ wiphy_freq_limits_apply(wiphy, freq_limits, n_freq_limits);
+
+out_kfree:
+ kfree(freq_limits);
+ if (err)
+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to get limits: %d\n", err);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(wiphy_read_of_freq_limits);
--
2.10.1
^ permalink raw reply related
* Re: [PATCH V6 1/3] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency limit property
From: Rob Herring @ 2017-01-04 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki
Cc: Johannes Berg, linux-wireless, Martin Blumenstingl, Felix Fietkau,
Arend van Spriel, Arnd Bergmann, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <20170104175832.25996-1-zajec5@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>
> This new file should be used for properties that apply to all wireless
> devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> V2: Switch to a single ieee80211-freq-limit property that allows specifying
> *multiple* ranges. This resolves problem with more complex rules as pointed
> by Felx.
> Make description implementation agnostic as pointed by Arend.
> Rename node to wifi as suggested by Martin.
> V3: Use more real-life frequencies in the example.
> V5: Describe hardware design as possible use for this property
> V6: Even better property description, thanks Rob for your help!
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/wireless/ieee80211.txt
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: document common IEEE 802.11 frequency properties
From: Arend Van Spriel @ 2017-01-04 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafał Miłecki, Kalle Valo
Cc: Rob Herring, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Martin Blumenstingl,
Felix Fietkau, Arnd Bergmann, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Rafał Miłecki
In-Reply-To: <CACna6rxx-8499ZQKekdORF0UWQQazwGu2On1aq-fwA4oCX7pgw@mail.gmail.com>
On 4-1-2017 15:53, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 4 January 2017 at 15:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3 January 2017 at 20:55, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:59:54PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>>>>>
>>>>> This new file should be used for properties handled at higher level and
>>>>> so usable with all drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Why is this needed? Where would this data normally come from?
>>>
>>> Vendors limit choice of channels at their web user interface level. I
>>> want to do better and report proper channels directly at kernel level
>>> instead of masking them in every possible configuration tool.
>>
>> Why do vendors limit the channels? Is it because of a hardware
>> limitation (antenna does not support, or not calibrated, for a certain
>> band etc) or something else?
>
> Please review & comment on the latest version, currently V5:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9495795/
> "This can be used to specify extra hardware limitations caused by e.g.
> used antennas or power amplifiers."
Just to be clear, it is does not need to be a hardware limitation, but
simply a way to assure that multiple wlan radios are not interfering
with each other and crank up the total bandwidth that vendors can put on
their box.
Regards,
Arend
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [1/2] ath10k: add accounting for the extended peer statistics
From: Christian Lamparter @ 2017-01-04 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan; +Cc: Kalle Valo, linux-wireless, ath10k
In-Reply-To: <20170103052827.GA8204@atheros-ThinkPad-T61>
Hello Shafi and Kalle,
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 10:58:27 AM CET Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 03:35:10PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > > Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> The 10.4 firmware adds extended peer information to the
> > >> firmware's statistics payload. This additional info is
> > >> stored as a separate data field and the elements are
> > >> stored in their own "peers_extd" list.
> > >>
> > >> These elements can pile up in the same way as the peer
> > >> information elements. This is because the
> > >> ath10k_wmi_10_4_op_pull_fw_stats() function tries to
> > >> pull the same amount (num_peer_stats) for every statistic
> > >> data unit.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 4a49ae94a448faa ("ath10k: fix 10.4 extended peer stats update")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>
> > >
> > > My understanding is that I should skip this patch 1. Please let me know if
> > > I misunderstood. But I'm still plannning to apply patch 2.
> >
> > I added Mohammed (I hope, he can reply to the open question when he
> > returns), Since I'm not sure what he wants or not.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the "extended" boolean serves no purpose
> > because it was only used in once place in debugfs_sta which was
> > removed in the patch. ( "ath10k_sta_update_stats_rx_duration"
> > and "ath10k_sta_update_extd_stats_rx_duration" have been unified).
>
> [shafi] We will wait for Kalle to review from the de-ferred stage
> and get his opinion as well(regarding the design change).
> I have no concerns as long this does not changes the existing behaviour.
> thank you !
Thank you Shafi for sticking around. I just fished your response to
"Re: [PATCH] ath10k: merge extended peer info data with existing peers info" [0].
out of my spam-bucket. Kalle, please look if your copy of the mail got
flagged/deleted as well. Judging from the reply in this thread, I think you
overlooked it as well?
After reading it, I think the previous post and the request to put the patch
on wait was unnecessary. As of now, it seems to me that the open questions
between us have been settled amically (so to speak). Kalle, do you have any
concerns or can you put this in the next round then?
Regards,
Christian
[0] <https://www.mail-archive.com/ath10k@lists.infradead.org/msg06066.html>
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox