public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Leach <matthew.leach@collabora.com>
To: Baochen Qiang <baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@kernel.org>,
	 linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath11k@lists.infradead.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath11k: workaround firmware bug where peer_id=0
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:54:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a4v54s88.fsf@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7dbc3836-c42c-4cbb-a50a-011d82a0ee81@oss.qualcomm.com> (Baochen Qiang's message of "Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:06:33 +0800")

Hi Baochen,

Baochen Qiang <baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com> writes:

> On 3/30/2026 3:57 PM, Matthew Leach wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Matthew Leach <matthew.leach@collabora.com> writes:
>> 

[...]

> for chips like QCA2066 and WCN6855 etc 0 is a valid value, however
> this is not for chips like QCN9074 etc.
>
> so a possible fix would be to add hardware ops based on chips: for
> QCN9074 we keep the existing validation on 0 in the ops, while for
> QCA2066 the ops is a null func. Or even simper we can remove the
> validation for all chips.

In that case, does it make sense to remove the condition check

if (rxcb->peer_id)

in ath11k_dp_rx_h_find_peer()? It looks like this has been used as a
small optimisation, where if peer_id isn't valid it skips checking for
it in the peer hash table. However, if on newer chips peer_id=0 is
valid, we should remove this?

Regards,
-- 
Matt

  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-14 12:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-26 10:53 [PATCH] ath11k: workaround firmware bug where peer_id=0 Matthew Leach
2026-03-30  7:57 ` Matthew Leach
2026-04-14  7:06   ` Baochen Qiang
2026-04-14 12:54     ` Matthew Leach [this message]
2026-04-15  3:16       ` Baochen Qiang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87a4v54s88.fsf@collabora.com \
    --to=matthew.leach@collabora.com \
    --cc=ath11k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=baochen.qiang@oss.qualcomm.com \
    --cc=jjohnson@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel@collabora.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox