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
next prev parent 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