From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f52.google.com (mail-wr1-f52.google.com [209.85.221.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F60171CE; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="T7BXAm1Z" Received: by mail-wr1-f52.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-337abfd6151so354466f8f.1; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 05:09:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1705324169; x=1705928969; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:references:to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=xqciNHiwX5Xpe9HUhoDTBRkSyWdUM5unYCkQrW8mDZo=; b=T7BXAm1ZKQM4MlPZ5I41/fslMSZjcmVPyKJrnpA4IZV4ieG3GWzR++3wQNm3/KxC++ XriUX68TqPhis+B/03djNGPtGeRA14O2AvAvsTumAbEskwjkhlMAzUJViKMaafTOpmq7 ua5v99bFtt7ZYqeAH4s5Yq+mNv4auTqL1BIcg0xsTfVTrEvb/tbn8J6Vdt+mS71bkUci ocEEwhW5CcANXn3UW5zMxzcGaok4VTfo+4TzkKP64MEOLVoiEakOOUugAo2F0++zIw/X t2xZucBmgAjCKUc9OOKCerArHlg8HqYDGWLtJfTKhQsCGJo8rlQkVLDnmhEF4qBr23Ij Q45w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705324169; x=1705928969; h=in-reply-to:references:to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xqciNHiwX5Xpe9HUhoDTBRkSyWdUM5unYCkQrW8mDZo=; b=e+pg1Q6U96CFpcEkn58HZPqCkYm6ScRrpoyzaaXfoRdU/1k86pgK//CogaSTpueFCd r6ySxwBklM+gSzERMUvL/z4Uc8QoUqKSx2ge7Y2ZT2Qig+nG6bNS6x9kBsgx/2zd7W8E ZA7xs9hzxU9G1Q3lg3DIKliN33Gn42NOv4Xe6GuvSel25uvewGsF/kFyYYnDkZvDlw5R uJvm5GuREx6dZz1AuMFKaZkpmDCNaKMKpGRPKPz3pFpkOJvMmaEzmE10bEqm6Es1za90 ZjRjsjK442Jinps6b043FskR9z33rsgKlxuta1UW7xihkZ155b48zqNIUMB28yHjhG07 +UgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw0Oj8KdalRRQ0GuQ8Ykzd42SC/nfaufegSOJCdejsXOTspQ6PR pZRzbrbXgotZoot28C1qDiw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE3Hcks9ZuOLGbttyuv2aHArfvLfRvJchXNZtRx7ewfjtOLGEBT8LxfluFLjDM8Gk5c+eFnvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:420a:0:b0:337:9015:ab4b with SMTP id n10-20020a5d420a000000b003379015ab4bmr3610104wrq.108.1705324169004; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 05:09:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (freebox.vlq16.iliad.fr. [213.36.7.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d16-20020adf9c90000000b003366c058509sm11850615wre.23.2024.01.15.05.09.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2024 05:09:28 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:09:28 +0100 Message-Id: Cc: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct scan_req_params From: "Nicolas Escande" To: "Jeff Johnson" , "Kalle Valo" X-Mailer: aerc 0.15.2 References: <20231127180559.1696041-1-nico.escande@gmail.com> <20c7a367-2243-4e13-b023-9999dc6c6790@quicinc.com> In-Reply-To: On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote: > On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote: > [...] > > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_fl= ags ever > > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCA= N_XXX with > > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfi= eld. > > > > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct an= d > > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks > > except when filling the firmware structure. > > > > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to > > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may > > have a different opinion on this. > > > > /jeff > > No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything. > As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I onl= y care > that this gets resolved. Hi Kalle/Jeff, Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ? Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using t= he bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wm= i.